Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/57/2017

SHIV DEV SINGH THAKUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

JASPER INFOTECH - Opp.Party(s)

RUPALI CHADA

13 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No.                57/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :    24-05-2017

 Date of Decision      :     20-09-2018

 

Shiv Dev Singh Thakur,

S/O Kuldeep Singh,

R/O Kalka Nagar Kundarorian Katra,

A/P Jammu,Rajpura.

                                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                 V/S

      1. Jasper Infotech Pvt.ltd.

         246,1^st Floor,Phase-III,Okhla Industrial Area,

        New Delhi.

    2.TVS Electronics Ltd.BLR-PC,

        C/O Pro Connect Supply Chain Solutions Ltd.

        Sy.No.102/1,Adakamaran Hali,Village,

       Dasabaoyra Hobli,Makali Post,City Banglore/

      State Karnataka,Pin 562123.

3.The Managing Director Xiaomi Technology  India Pvt.Ltd.

    8^th Floor Tower-1 Umiya Business Bay,Marathahalli-Sarjapur,

Outer Ring Road,Banglore,Karnataka India-560103.

                                                                                                                                                                      Opposite parties

CORAM:

                 Khalil Choudhary   (Distt.& Sessions Judge)  President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                      Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                               Member                                         

        

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.Rupali Chadha,Advocate for complainant, present.

    Mr.Dileep Bhan,Advocate for OP1,present.

   Nemo for OP 2

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for OP3,present.  

 

                                                                      ORDER

                             Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint in hand are that; complainant said to have purchased Mobile Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 32gb, from OP2,through OP1,on,18-11-2016 for sale consideration of Rs.11,999/-,which was delivered to him on,24-11-2016,(copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-A).Grievance of complainant is that after one month from the date of purchase, the said handset developed some problems, like, heating, hanging and abnormal display(there is a spot on the display which is going on an increase day by day).According to complainant he being a lawyer by profession faced many problems  and in order to save any document, he had to transfer the document to other phone and even sometime when he wish to call anyone ,the phone becomes blank and took some time to return at initial stage besides sometimes it get restarted automatically thereby causing a great mental torture, as well as, monetary loss to him as the clients refused to pay fees for not being apprised on time owing to non communication caused by the phone.Complainant further submitted that he had tried to talk to OP3 over telephonic conversation, but failed to get connected to OP3 despite repeated attempts, he had forwarded a mail to the official email address of OP3,but till date despite repeated attempts nothing positive has been done except replying every time with a new mail directing him to complete formalities(Annexure-B).Constrained by the act of OPs complainant served legal notice to OP3,but nothing yield any fruitful result. Submission of complainant is that Ops delivered handset which was marred by manufacturing defect, therefore, same constitutes deficiency in service, therefore, prays for refund of cost of handset or in the alternative replacement of handset with a new one and in addition, also prays for compensation and litigation charges to the tune of Rs.50,000/.

                 On the other hand,OP1 filed written version and while denying the allegation of complainant, went onto submit that it is online market place platform under the brand name/trademark “Snapdeal”through the website i.e.www.snapdeal.com which is an online market place. The Website is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sales transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. The Website enables independent third party sellers to list, advertise and offer to sell their products and services to the users of the Website. Once a user accepts the offer of sale of the products made by the third party sellers on the Website, the seller is intimated electronically and is required to ensure that the products are made available and delivered in accordance to the delivery terms as set out by the seller as part of the terms for sale displayed on the Website.

      In so far as OP2 concerned, despite notice did not take any action to represent the  case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period, provided under the Act. Thereafter, the right of the OP,2 to file reply was closed by this Forum vide order dated  12-09-2017.

                                 At the same time,OP3 filed written version and resisted the complaint on the ground that  there is no deficiency of service or un fair trade practice on its part. That OP1 is vendor of products sold by OP3 in India,OP2 is distributor of products sold by OP3.The complainant has purchased a phone sold under the Mi brand,namely,the Redmi Note 3 (32GB) mobile phone for Rs.11,999/-.All Mi and Xiaomi brand mobile phones sold within India are sold under a standard set of warranty terms. That in February,2017 complainant approached OP3 in connection with issues related in the product. OP3 duly advised the complainant to avail the PickMi service provided by OP3,so that the product could be picked up from the complainant and necessary technical examination of the product could be done in order to ascertain the defects in the product. The complainant however refused and insisted on getting a refund/replacement of the Replacement Product.

 

                  Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Anil Kumar Sharma.Complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice, copies of emails and copy of legal notice.

                                    On the other hand,OP3 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavits of Mr.Sameer BS Rao and Manu Kumar Jain Authorised Representatives of Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.Ltd.

         We have perused case file and heard L/Cs for the parties at length.

                      To be brief, allegation of complainant is that he purchased  handset manufactured by OP1,but within one month from its purchase, handset was marred by defects,however,despite repeated requests,OPs failed to remove  the alleged defects. On the other hand,Op,2 despite service of notice, did not choose to defend itself before the Forum,therefore,the right of OP2 to file written version was closed.  

                        In so far as, allegation of complainant regarding defects in the handset are concerned and failure of OPs to remove alleged defects, same went unchallenged from OPs side.

                     On the other hand, OP,2 despite being duly served, failed to take any action to represent the case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of the complainant or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by OP,2 in this complaint and there is also no evidence to rebut the case of the complainant. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 (2) (b) (ii)of the Consumer Protection Act,1987, which provides that in a case where the OP2 omits or fails to take any action to represent the case within the time given by Forum, in that situation the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-Clause (ii) of the Section 11, of Act of 1987, clearly, provides that when OP,2 omits or fails to take any action to represent the case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                      From perusal of the documentary evidence and affidavit filed by complainant, it is found that complainant has succeeded in proving his case, against OPs,despite making repeated requests, therefore, a case is made out by complainant for deficiency in service on the part of OPs,in not redressing his grievance.

                  Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded in proving deficiency in service on the part of OPs,as such,OPs are directed to refund cost of handset to the tune of Rs.11,999/.-to the complainant, who in turn returned the handset with all accessories to OPs. OPs are  further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-to the complainant. The awarded amount be deposited in this Forum within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

     Announced                                          (Khalil Choudhary)                                                20-09-2018                                                                                   (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

 Agreed by                                                                                           President                                                      

                                                                                    (District Consumer Forum)

Ms.Vijay Angral                                                                             Jammu.

Member

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member