BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.320 of 2014

Date of Instt. 12.09.2014

Date of Decision :02.03.2015

Atul Kalia aged about 40 years son of Chaman Kalia R/o 404, New Deol Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Iberry India Building No.4,4/42 Second Lane Beach Chennai 600001, Phone No.04449053456 through its Director/Partner/ Chairman.

2. Ravi Telecom, Authorized Service Centre of Iberry India, Shop No.5, New Santokhpura, Near Water Tank, Jalandhar, Punjab, through its Incharge.

3. M/s Kamraj Kamraj No.28/7, Vasantham Garden, MKB Nagar, Vyasrpadi Chennai-6000039.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Ravi Paul, Auth,Rep.for the opposite party No.2

Opposite parties No.1 & 3 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite party No.1 Iberry India is dealing in Auxus Xenia mobile for sale in India through their authorized dealers i.e opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.2 is authorized service centre of company in Jalandhar. On 11.4.2014 Auxus Xenia handset of opposite party No.1 was purchased by complainant through ebay from opposite party No.3 at price of Rs.8990/- vide receipt No.6811. At the time of purchase of branding of this mobile was done through online advertisement at ebay featuring it to be advanced smart mobile with excellent performance and also lot was said about its after sales service which lured the complainant to go for this mobile. At the time of purchase it was assured that one year warranty would be provided and company is also having its service centre which will provide prompt service if required in future. The handset started giving problems right after purchase, when contacted regarding this with opposite party No.3 they asked to contact opposite party No.1 at their online support system or opposite party No.3 locally. Thereafter opposite party No.1 was contacted for their help at their helpline on 16.4.2014. Again in July 2014 beginning handset again started giving problems, so complainant contacted helpline of opposite party No.1, they without seeing the condition said that it is software issue and it would be resolved after changing the software, but problem still did not resolve and problem persisted and phone started giving lot of problems and finally complaint regarding this was registered to opposite party No.1 on 23.7.2014 via ticket No.947403. Opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to visit authorized service centre i.e opposite party No.2 and handset was submitted at service centre and work order No.RVSRN1407RTS00125 was raised. Opposite party No.2 assured the problem to be rectified in 10 to 15 days. After stipulated time when complainant contacted opposite party No.2 they kept on stalling and giving petty excuses. When contacted opposite party No.1 at Chennai through their helpline number they also kept on stalling sand saying that they will let him know in 3 to 4 days. Meanwhile both the opposite parties were regularly contacted telephonically and also visited personally to local service centre, always the phone was disconnected or kept on hold for 10 to 15 minutes. The complainant finally on August 25, wrote mail to helpline narrating the incidents of whole last month regarding the harassment faced by complainant and how because of lethargic attitude of opposite party No.1 lot of personal work loss and professional work loss has been suffered by complainant. Complainant urged opposite party No.1 that if the problem is such technical, that they have been unable to rectify in one month, it is their duty to replace the set as the set has been purchased two months back, but the opposite party No.1 still did not give satisfactory response and keep on saying that their technical team is handling the issue and they will let them know in 4 to 5 days. Again opposite party No.1 was contacted on 29.8.2014 to replace the handset but they did not respond. Finally complainant contacted opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 telephonically, however they were repeating their same old story. The service centre personal finally said that it is possible that he can ask company to get back complainant set in one week in un-repaired form. He gave some other number to complainant and told when the handset will comeback he will contact complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the handset or to its price alongwith interest etc. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that on 11.4.2014 Auxus Xenia handset of opposite party No.1 was purchased by complainant through ebay from opposite party No.3. As quoted by complainant the handset started giving some problem. In view to give full satisfaction the answering opposite party No.2 has changed the set which the complainant received in working condition on 1.12.2014 in this Forum. There is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite parties No.1 and 3 did not appear inspite of notice and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2/1 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

7. It is not disputed that complainant has purchased the mobile handset in question through authorized dealer i.e opposite party No.3. According to the complainant, mobile handset started giving problem soon after purchase but opposite party failed to rectify the same. Further it is in the affidavit Ex.OP2/A of opposite party No.2 that handset was received by complainant in working condition on 1.12.2014 in this Forum. Opposite party No.2 has also produced work order sheet whereon complainant has made endorsement that he has received the handset in working condition under protest on 1.12.2014. The fact that opposite party gave the handset to the complainant in this Forum on 1.12.2014 clearly tends to prove that the handset purchased by complainant was defective. Moreover opposite party No.2 gave mobile handset to the complainant only after filing of the present complaint, which was filed on 11.9.2014. So complainant has to file the present complaint for redressal of his grievance. So he is entitled to compensation and litigation expenses.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

02.03.2015 Member Member President