Haryana

Kurukshetra

46/2018

Vikas Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Malhotra Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Madan

09 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.46 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 27.02.2018.

                                                     Date of decision:10.01.2019.

Vikas Yadav son of Sh. Sukhi Ram Yadav, resident of House No.1594, Gali No.1, Azad Nagar, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Malhotra Mobile Services (M1 Service Centre), Shop No.14, Ist Floor, Vidhata Complex, Opposite New Bus Stand, Kurukshetra, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Xiomi Technology India Private Limited, 5^th Floor, Delta BLK Embassy Tech. Sq. Kadubeesanahalli, Marathahalli, Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road Banglore KA-560103.

….Respondents.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Sandeep Madan, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Op No.1 already exparte.

                Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the OP.No.2.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Vikas against Malhotra Mobile and another, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile set, Model Redmi Note 3 (Silver, 32 GB) for a sum of Rs.10,799/- from the Op No.2 through online.  It is alleged that from the very beginning, the said mobile set was having manufacturing defect with the problem that the screen itself turns black on dialing any number and the complainant was unable to operate the mobile set after dialing i.e. unable to turn speaker, unable to selection option, unable to add, merge call and all other operations and become dead/shut down and was not in a position to switch on.  The complainant approached the Op No.1 regarding defective mobile set and despite repair, the above-said defects were not removed by the Op No.1.  It is further alleged that the complainant sent several e-mails to Op No.2 but the problem was not rectified/resolved.  It is further alleged that at present the mobile set is lying with the Ops.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the defective mobile set with the new one with extended warranty or to refund the cost of mobile set and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 13.04.2018.  Op No.2 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that on November, 13, 2017 the complainant approached the authorized service-centre of the Op No.2 in connection with defects in the product and on examination, it was ascertained that the product’s proximity sensor was not working and the defect related to proximity sensor in the product was duly repaired by the technicians of the authorized service-centre of the Op No.2, as per the standard warranty conditions and the product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition; that in December, the complainant again approached the authorized service-centre and the technicians of the authorized service-centre of Op No.2 informed the complainant that no issues were detected in the product, however, the product was kept under observation with the authorized service-centre of Op No.2; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from the Op No.2 for a sum of Rs.10,799/- through online.  The grievance of the complainant is that from the very beginning, the mobile set was having manufacturing defect with the problem that the screen itself turns black on dialing any number and the complainant was unable to operate the mobile set after dialing i.e. unable to turn speaker, unable to selection option, unable to add, merge call and all other operations and become dead/shut down and was not in a position to switch on.  The complainant approached the Op No.1 regarding defective mobile set and despite repair, the above-said defects were not removed by the Op No.1.  The complainant again deposited the mobile set for repair with the service-centre of Ops but the Ops did not remove the defects from the mobile set and the mobile set is still lying with the Ops.  The complainant sent several e-mails to Op No.2, copy of e-mails are Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 but the Op No.2 did not redress the grievances of complainant.  The complainant has supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A so set out by him in the complaint.  Whereas, on the other hand, the Op No.1 was proceeded against exparte and Op No.2 did not produce any evidence.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.  Hence, in such like circumstances, we find that the complainant is entitled for replacement of defective mobile set with the new one. 

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the defective mobile set with the new one of the same value as purchased by the complainant.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:10.01.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.