Dt. of filing- 04/01/2019

Dt. of Judgement- 03/07/2019

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.

          This complaint  is filed by Shri Neelkantha Banerjee  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  against the Opposite Party namely Infotel Services  alleging deficiency in services on its part.

          Case of the complainant in short is that  OP  is the authorised service  centre  of Xiaomi Technology  India Pvt. Ltd.  Complainant is the user  of one Redmi Note – 4 –IN – 4 + 64G gray model mobile phone manufactured by  Xiaomi bearing  IMEl  (MEID) 864238038380748.During the course of the use of the  said phone as  it was  noticed by the complainant  that it had problem of charging  and auto power off,  power on fault, Complainant  approached the OP  on 13.09.2018  with a  view  to get his mobile phone repair by replacing  the affected parts with genuine accessories. OP then took   the mobile phone. An amount of Rs. 118/- was paid by the complainant towards the charge for inspection. After two hours  of handing over of the said mobile  set, OP  informed the complainant that the mobile  set  was found dead  after inspection and the complainant  was provided  the service  record   dt. 13.09.2018 showing  the inspection remarks. When complainant  went to the OP  he was informed that the mother board  of the set  got damaged  due to water seepage  and the cost of repairing will be Rs. 6000/- to  Rs. 8,000/-.But complainant had handed over the  set in working condition  having problem  of auto power off  and so he was  astonished to find   the said remarks. Complainant’s phone  was not  charging completely. OP reported him  that the mobile set  would not be retrieved in its working  conditions unless the  mother board  is replaced. But the complainant  had taken  a photograph before  handing over the  set for inspection. On comparison  authenticity  of the report by the OP created a serious  doubt. So  as the OP deceived the complainant by committing fraud play by tampering  the mother board, Complainant  sent a notice to the OP dt. 20.09.2018 to repair the said phone. But no heed was paid  by OP  and thus the present complaint has been  filed by the  complainant  praying for directing  the OP  to repair the fault   originally detected  in the set and deliver the same  in working condition to the complainant. To pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation cost  of Rs. 15,000/-.

          Complainant has annexed with the complaint petition, xerox copy of service  order, receipt relating to  payment of Rs. 118/- and  copy of the  service record and the copy of  snaps.

          On perusal of the record, it appears  that   inspite  of the service of  notice  as no step  was taken  by the OP, case was  directed to proceed exparte   vide order dated 08.03.2019.

          So, only point requires  determination is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief  as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

          It is the specific  claim  of the complainant that in his mobile  phone set namely Redmi Note – 4 –IN – 4 + 64G   had  problem of charging ( beyond 3 point ) and   auto power off, power on fault, , he handed over  the same  to the OP which is the authorised service centre . It is his further  claim that  before handing  over  the set  to the OP  for inspection and repairing,   it was not  completely dead and so  the authenticity   of the service  record by the  OP  as  “PCB short/set Dead” is not correct. On perusal of the documents  annexed with the complaint  especially the service order , it appears that  it  is  specifically  mentioned  about the fault  description “cannot charge, auto power off , power on fault”  indicating that it was not completely  dead set  as found by the OP in the  service record. If Mobile  set was completely dead, OP ought to have  reflected in the said document at the time of handing  over of the  mobile set  by the complainant. OP should have noticed it when the phone  was handed over but it was dead was intimated  to the complainant after two hours.  So, on consideration of the  evidence  of the complainant  as  absolutely  there is no  contrary  material before this Forum to counter  or rebut the claim of the complainant, complainant is entitled  to repair   of the said phone. However, no compensation as prayed  can be allowed in the  given situation of this case.

Hence,

                          ordered

          CC/3/2019 is allowed exparte. Opposite Party is directed  to repair the fault detected  in the Redmi Note – 4 –IN – 4 + 64G  gray mobile  phone and deliver the same  in working condition to the complainant within two months from the date of handing over of the same by the complainant. Opposite Party is further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.8,000/- to the  complainant  within the  aforesaid period of two months.