| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/283 of 27.11.2015 Decided on: 12.7.2016 Mrs. Jasvir Kaur , Hostel Warden C/o Patiala Institute of Engineering & Technology for Women Vill: Nandpur Kesho, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus 1. Managing Director/Chief Executive XOLO, A-56, Sector 64, Noida-201301, Uttar Pradesh through Mobile World Behind Bus Stand Luv Kush Market Lahori Gate Road, Patiala (Service Centre of XOLO Operating under Parent Company Lava) 2. Managing Director/ Chief Executive Snapdeal 246, Ist Floor Phase III Okhla Industrial Area New Delhi 110020. …………….Ops Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: In person. For Ops: Sh.J.P.Sharma,Advocate ORDER NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one mobile phone XOLO-Q1010i of XOLO Company through Snapdeal i.e. Op no.2 vide invoice No.E 446 B-6/14-15/9882 dated 27.10.2014 for an amount of Rs.9439/-.It is averred that after 20 days of the said purchase, the mobile phone abruptly stopped working and the complainant reported the matter to Op no.2 on mobile No.09212692126, who responded that it can entertain the complaint within a week of the sale only. When Op no.2 failed to resolve the matter, the complainant approached Op No.1 through the authorized service centre of the company i.e. Mobile World. The service centre did not give any complaint number to the complainant and the mobile phone was received by putting simple ‘stamp’ of ‘mobile world’. It is further averred that this problem repeated seven times but no satisfactory result was obtained.The complainant also lodged the complaint to Central Workshop, Noida, vide reference No.WO No.510005859934. After rectification of the defect, the mobile phone was received back in the Ist week of October, when the same was put to use, it totally failed after five minutes use. The complainant again reported the matter to Op no.1 through mobile world on 8.10.2015 vide W.O.No.510006152600.The complainant also intimated the service centre vide e-mail on 8.10.2015, 9.10.2015 and 15.10.2015. After exerting so much, no satisfactory reply was given by the service centre. The service centre did not replace the mobile phone with a new one rather told the complainant to collect the old Lava Set which the complainant refused to collect. The complainant informed the Xolo Customer Care for about 100 times in three months on their phone No.186030100104 and 9316682750, that the service centre was not doing the duty but to no use. This failure on the part of Op no.1 to rectify the defect in the mobile phone, or to replace it with a new one amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Op as the defect occurred during the warranty period. As a result the complainant underwent a lot of harassment as well as mental agony. Ultimately she approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) .
- Cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op no.1 only, who appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. After admitting the fact that the mobile phone in question was purchased by the complainant from Op no.2 and the same is manufactured by Op no.1, Op no.2 has submitted that the complainant approached the service centre of the company on 8.10.2014 and reported some battery charging problem. The engineer of the service centre rectified the problem and returned the mobile phone to the complainant. Again on 17.11.2015, the complainant visited the service centre of the company. The engineer of the service centre rectified the problem and told the complainant that the mobile phone of the complainant was O.K. and was ready for delivery. But the complainant became adamant to get the refund of the invoice amount and did not take the delivery of the mobile phone and directly filed the present complaint. It is further submitted by Op no.1 that the ‘warranty’ means ‘only repair not replacement or refund’. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of her case, the complainant produced the evidence Ex.CA her sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C45 and closed the evidence.
- Whereas the counsel for Op no.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Amit Kumar c/o M/s Lava International Pvt.Ltd. and closed the evidence.
- The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person, counsel for OP no.1 and gone through the evidence on record.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from Op no.2 on 24.10.2014 for an amount of Rs.9439.Ex.C3 is the copy of the job sheet vide which the complainant deposited the mobile phone with the service centre of Op no.1 on 8th October,2015. After 8th October,2015, the complainant had conversation with the service centre of the company through e-mails . Exs.C5 to C45 is the record of the conversation between the complainant and the service centre through e-mails. It is specifically written by the complainant in his complaint that service centre of Op no.1 told her to collect the old mobile phone which she refused to collect. Since 8.10.2015, the mobile phone is lying with the service centre of Op no.1.
- Whereas the only plea taken up by Op no.1 is that the complainant for the first time approached the service centre of Op no.1 on 8.10.2015 and the engineer of the service centre rectified the problem and returned the mobile phone to the complainant. Again the complainant approached the service centre on 17.11.2015 and the engineer of the service centre again rectified the problem and told the complainant to collect the mobile phone but the complainant did not collect the same as she demanded the refund of the price of the mobile phone.
- Today, during the course of arguments also , the counsel for Op no.1 stated that the mobile phone was ready and the complainant could collect the same. The counsel for Op no.1 has placed reliance upon the citation Classic Automobiles Versus Lila Nand Mishra and Anr. 2010(1) C.P.J. 235: 2010(2) C.P.R.220 : 2010(2) CLT 367 of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and the case law cited are distinguishable. Hence the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint as the defect occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period and OP was bound to rectify the same. As such, Op no.1 is directed to rectify the defect in the mobile phone upto the satisfaction of the complainant and if the defect still persists, Op no.1 should replace the mobile phone with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund the amount of Rs.9439/-, the same being the price of the mobile phone. Op no.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as cost of litigation. Order be complied by Op no.1 within a period of 45 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Pronounced Dated: 12.7.2016 Neelam Gupta A.P.S.Rajput Member President | |
