BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.301 of 2019

Date of Instt. 02.08.2019

Date of Decision: 19.10.2021

Hony. Sub. Major Vijay Sharma, Age 49 years son of Late Jagdish Raj, Resident of H. No.76, Baba Attar Singh Nagar, Sofipind, Jalandhar Cantt. District Jalandhar-144024, Mobile No.78888-49844.

….. Complainant

Versus

1. Juneja Telecom, Shop No. 12-B, Model Town Jalandhar City- 144003. Through its Prop./Partner/ Authorized Representative.

2. SLS Service Solutions, 186, Lower Basement, Model Town, Opp. Nikku Park, Jalandhar 144003, Through its Prop./ Partner/ Authorized Representative.

3. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, 4^th Floor, Ozone Manay Tech Park, Hongasandra, Bangalore–560068. (Karnataka) Telephone No.18001036286 Email:

..…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)

Present: Complainant in Person.

Sh. M. S. Sethi, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.

OPs No.2 & 3 exparte.

Order

Kuljit Singh(President)

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that on 27.08.2018, he purchased a mobile of MI Company, Make Note 5 pro 6/64 IMEI No.865021045229762 for Rs.15,200/- vide invoice No.T-1521 dated 27.08.2018 from OP-1. One year warranty was given for the said product by OPs and at the time of sale, the OP-1 assured and told the him that in case of any complaint/fault/defect, if arisen in said mobile handset during warranty period, the handset shall be repaired/replaced free of cost. On 30.05.2019, at the time of charging the said mobile, it burnt and became out of order. He brought said defect into notice of OP-1 who directed the complainant to approach OP-2. On 01.06.2019, he went to OP-2 and handed over the defective/damaged mobile handset for repairs/replacement to OP-2. OP-2 told the complainant that it is burnt case, so, the same would be sent to company for replacement and told the complainant come after 2-3 days. When after 3 days, he went to OP-2 to take the handset, the OP-2 told the complainant said handset can neither be repaired nor replaced because it has been shown to other shop for repair and refused to repair/replace the mobile handset. Lastly, prayer has been made that OP No.2 & 3 be direct to replace the defective/damaged mobile handset with new one with fresh warranty of one year of same model and in the alternative to return the price as per bill (Rs.15,200/-) and also claimed Rs.5,000/- as litigation and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 proceeded against exparte. OP No.3 also failed appeared despite service and was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 06.11.2019. Whereas, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that present complaint against OP-1 has been filed without any cause of action, because answering OP simply sold the said mobile set in question through invoice dated 27.08.2018 being a retailer and after sale of said product/mobile set, OP No.2&3 were required to provide the services to its consumers according to terms and conditions of manufacturing, guarantee and warrantee of their products/mobile phones as mentioned in warranty card. The alleged loss/damage allegedly caused to the said purchased mobile set in question was not due to any manufacturing defect of the product, rather as per information received by answering OP-1 from OPs No.2 & 3, said alleged loss/damage of burning of mobile set in question was due to the negligence, careless of the complainant during the course of charging the said mobile set. Complaint has been filed by complainant without procuring any technical and expert report from a competent expert regarding alleged damage to mobile set in question. On merits, purchase of mobile in dispute is admitted. Further, OP-1 has made whole submission as made in preliminary objections. Lastly prayer has been made for dismissal of complaint.

3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.

4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective documents.

5. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6. From the above averments these points were taken for consideration. Point No.1, whether complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed for by him not? Point No.2: Whether deficiency of service and negligence on the part of OPs 1 to 3 or not? Point No.3 relief?

7. It is clear that the complainant had purchased mobile phone in dispute from OP-1. As per Ex.C-2, the mobile phone was given at the service centre of mobile company on 01.06.2019. After the mobile burnt the same mobile was sent to the OP-3. There is warranty of one year from the date of purchase, the complainant purchase the mobile phone on 27.08.2018. The blast occurred on 30.05.2019.

8. The OPs No.2 & 3 have failed to appear and rebut the version of the complainant. Moreover, till date, the OPs have failed to repair the phone in dispute. Thus, virtually statement of complainant suffered through affidavit through Ex.CA is fully believable that he due to defect in mobile, it was burnt and had approached to OP No.2 time and again for removal of the trouble in the mobile. Despite that the trouble in the set is persisting. In view of this, it is obvious that defective mobile was non-operational. Therefore, statement of complainant through affidavit fully believable that due to inherent defect in the mobile, the same is become brunt. This complaint has been filed for refund of the mobile within warranty period. No one from external appearance will be able to detect the inherent manufacturing defects warranting replacement of mobile. However, refund of price of mobile place in this case within span of warranty from purchase of the mobile by complainant.

9. In case titled as Hind Motor (I) Ltd & Anr. Tata Motors Vs. Lakhbir Singh & another 1(2014) CPJ 120 (NC), it has been laid that in case inherent defect in vehicle requiring major repairs after short span of eight months, found, then the vehicle should to be replaced, due to deficiency in services. Same is the position in this case. So by applying the analogy of law laid down in the above said case, this complaint deserves to be allowed.

10. Consequently, this complaint is allowed with directions to OP No.3 to deliver a new defect free mobile to complainant without charging any cost from him. In the alternative OP No.3 through OP No.2 directed to return amount of Rs.15,200/- to complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from date of disposal of this complaint. Amount of Rs.1000/- allowed on account of mental harassment but Rs.1000/- allowed as litigation expenses in favour of complainant and against OPs No.2 & 3. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.

11. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

19^th of October 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)

Jaswant Singh Dhillon

(Member)