Delhi

North East

CC/199/2018

Sh. Ajay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

MI Home - Opp.Party(s)

15 Nov 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 199/18

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ajay Kumar S/o Shri Siyaraam Choursiya A-93/2, Shakti Garden, East Gokulpur, New Delhi-110093.	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	MI Home E-22, Jyoti Shikhar Distt- Centre, Janakpuri New Delhi-110058.   Maa Vaishnavi Enterprised F-671, 1st Floor, Main Wazirabad Road Bhajanpura, Delhi	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION :

15.09.2018 15.11.2019 15.11.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts in the present complaint are that on 08.12.2017 the complainant had purchased MI Phone Redmi 5A 3GB RAM Grey colour from OP1 bearing invoice no. 1173268087 for a sum  of  Rs. 6,999/- inclusive of GST. The complainant stated that after 3-4 months the battery of the said mobile phone was not working well and the complainant reached OP2, authorized service centre of OP1 where the complainant states that the battery of the said mobile phone was not charged fully and was asked by OP2 employee to continuously keep the mobile in charging mode to get the mobile fully charged. On 05.05.2018 the complainant visited OP2 with other problem in the mobile phone, OP2 issued a job sheet no. WXIN1805050008081 where they did not mention about the battery issue and when the complainant asked about the battery issue, OP2 told him that the battery of the said mobile phone is getting discharged because of excessive use of internet. Complainant again on July 2018 visited the OP2 to get the mobile checked when OP2 officials told him that his mobile will be repaired on payment basis and asked him to deposit a sum of            Rs. 1,200/-. Feeling harassed, the complainant approached Mediation centre in August 2018 but none of the OPs appeared before the Mediation cell and the proceedings were concluded and file closed in September 2018. Therefore as a last resort, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum praying for issuance of directions against OPs to refund the cost of the mobile phone i.e. 6,999/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 70,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 1,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

Complainant has attached copy of invoice dated 08.12.2017, copy of jobsheet dated 05.05.2018 and copy of Mediation & Conciliation Centre.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 28.09.2018. Notice sent to OP1 served on 11.10.2018 but none appeared on its behalf. Notice sent to OP2 received back unserved with postal remark ‘Left’. Thereafter this Forum directed to verify the correct address of OP2 and for the same the complainant requests Dasti notice and on 03.11.2018 the Dasti notice was received by OP2 and copy of which was placed on record. Due to willful non appearance by OPs, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.03.2019.
3. Complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments in reiteration of its grievance against OPs.
4. During the course of oral arguments, on directions of this Forum to produce the subject mobile phone to ascertain its exact condition, the complainant produced the same. The said mobile phone on pressing the power key only flashed the MI Logo without getting switched on with apps seen.
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and perused the documents placed on record.

Admittedly, the subject mobile phone purchased in December 2017 functioned properly only till May- June 2018 i.e. 5-6 months after which it started malfunctioning and eventually completely stopped working as can be seen when mobile phone was produced before the Forum. The allegations have gone unrebutted due to absence of the OPs and any defence filed against the complaint.

Notwithstanding the absence of OPs or defence with regard to the subject mobile phone and its functionality, the fact that the complainant has used it uninterruptedly for 5-6 months has to be borne in mind while granting any relief in terms of refund / replacement.

The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Godrej Photo-ME Ltd Vs Jaya P. Apachu in FA No. 723/2003 decided on 24.05.2004 held that the undisputed fact that the machine was with the complainant in working order till few weeks before the end of warranty period and that the complainant had used the machine for almost six months, he could not demand a full refund. The Hon’ble National Commission, therefore held that the order passed by State Commission directing full refund was not right and reduced the quantum to be paid by OP to less than half.

Therefore, relying on the observation and view of the Hon’ble National Commission in such a case where the complainant using defective product for a while cannot claim full refund, we are not inclined to grant full refund of the cost of mobile phone and direct OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to refund cost of Rs. 4,500/- to the complainant towards depreciated value of the mobile phone alongwith compensation of Rs. 1,500/- towards mental harassment inclusive of litigation charges. Let the order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7. File be consigned to record room.
8. Announced on 15.11.2019.

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member