DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

C.C. No. :                         169 of 2018

Date of Institution :            18.10.2018

Date of Decision :               8.07.2019

Ashwani Kumar son of Shivdarshan Sharma r/o J P Nagar, Old Cantt Road, Street No.3, District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

Mahalakshmi Enterprises, (Redmi. Care Center), Shop No. 6, Nehru Shopping Centre, Circular Road, Faridkot through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory.

                                      ....Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

          Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member.

Present:     Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for complainant,

                 Sh Tarun Kumar on behalf of OP.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to refund Rs.1355.82 wrongly charged from complainant on account of repair of his mobile and for directing Ops to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.5,000/-as litigation expenses.

cc no. 169 of 2018

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a mobile phone of Redmi model Y1-IN-3+32G-Gray against proper bill on 4.12.2017. At the time of purchase, Ops assured complainant about quality of said phone and asserted that battery has one year guarantee. It was also assured by OPs that in case of any defect in said set, it would be replaced without any charges free of costs. It is averred that since the day of purchase, mobile set in question is giving troubles to complainant as it used to switch off automatically, its voice was not clear and its display was also defective. Complainant approached OP authorized service centre of said Company and reported about all the defects in his set and after examination of same, OP informed complainant that battery of phone was defect and needs replacement, which would cost Rs.799/-. Complainant apprised OP that his mobile set is under warrantee period, but OP did not agree and under compelling circumstances, complainant had to pay Rs.1355.82/-to OP on account of repair charges against invoice dated 9.10.2018. OP charged 18% as CGST and Rs.350/-as service charges to which he was not entitled to charge because mobile set in question was under warrantee period. Action of OP in charging amount of Rs.1355.82 from complainant on account of repair charges and CGST and service charges amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. All this has caused great harassment and mental tension to him, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

cc no. 169 of 2018

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 23.10.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                OP filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part.  It is averred that complainant is not their consumer and complaint is not maintainable in present form and no cause of action arises against them. Further averred that it involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring lengthy evidence, which is not permissible in the summary proceedings of this Forum. Moreover, complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and it is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties as manufacturer of mobile company that XIOMI  M I technology India Pvt Ltd and Shopkeeper from whom, complainant has purchased the said mobile, have not been made party by complainant in the present complaint. Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP as complainant approached them on 9.10.2018 and informed that his mobile set is facing back up problem. Service engineer of answering OP duly recorded the issue in service job sheet  and informed him that warranty period for the battery of his mobile was for six months and same was expired. Service engineer disclosed about terms and conditions of warranty and also informed about the cost of repair. Battery back up problem of mobile of complainant was duly repaired by answering Op by making replacement of his battery. Complainant paid the cost of repair and they duly repaired the mobile set of complainant as per standard warranty conditions and it was returned to complainant in proper working condition. It is

cc no. 169 of 2018

reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                                                   Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and document Ex C-2  and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                         To controvert the allegations of complainant, OP submitted before the Forum that he has already furnished all documents with written statement and these may be read as part of his evidence.

7                                                         We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant. After careful observation of the record placed on file and evidence led by complainant, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased his mobile set on 4.12.2017 and it was having one year warranty against all kinds of defects. Mobile of complainant developed some trouble during the warranty period and to get the same repaired, complainant approached OP, who is authorized service centre of XIOMI Mobile Company. After careful examination of his mobile set, OP replaced the battery of his mobile phone and charged Rs.1355.82 from him on account of repair charges, service charges and CGST. Complainant made several requests to OP that his phone is covered under warranty period and he is entitled for free repairs, but OP did not agree and complainant had to pay the said amount under compelling circumstances. All this act and conduct of OP amounts to deficiency in service and caused harassment to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply, OP have denied all the allegations of

cc no. 169 of 2018

complainant and asserted that warranty period for the battery of complainant was only for six months and beyond six months, repair cost is chargeable. Warranty period for his mobile was expired and they have charged as per terms and conditions of warranty. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

8                                              Ld counsel for complainant has brought our attention towards document ExC-2 which is copy of service record for his mobile phone. Bare perusal of same proves the pleadings of complainant that he purchased the said mobile phone on 4.12.2017 and it is clear that it was under warranty period. Service record is dated 9.10.2018 that further proves the pleadings of complainant that during the warranty period, his mobile got defective and he approached OP for repair purpose. It also depicts the amount of Rs.1355.82 charged by OP from complainant for rectifying the battery percentage indicator fault. Rs.71.91 are shown as charges deducted by OP on account of CGST. Through Ex C-1 complainant has reiterated his pleadings and grievance. There is no doubt that complainant purchased the mobile phone on 4.12.2017 and said mobile became defective during the subsistence of warranty period for said phone. Grievance of complainant is that despite making several requests OP did not replace or repaired his mobile phone free of cost and charged Rs.1355.82 from complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service. Had OPs paid any heed to hear the complaint of complainant and have provided effective services by doing repair of mobile in question free of costs, nature of complaint would have been different. We are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint is allowed against OP and opposite party is ordered to refund Rs.1355.82 to complainant

cc no. 169 of 2018

which he charged from complainant despite having sufficient knowledge that mobile phone of complainant was under warranty period and he was entitled for free repair services. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him including litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made in prescribed period of 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 8.07.2019

(Parampal Kaur)                 (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                              President