Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 426.
Instituted on : 25.07.2017.
Decided on : 12.10.2018.
Jasbir Jangra s/o Tejpal, aged 32 years, r/o VPO Mandi, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat(working at Raj Medicose Bishan Sarup Colony, Panipat, Haryana-132103).
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- MI Service Centre, Institute of Law, Rohtak-BMCP, Global Mobile Care, 331/6, Delhi Road, Opposite C.R.Institutre of Law, Rohtak-124001.
- Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, 8th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay Marathahalli-Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India, Pin code-560103.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Vivek Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone Redmi Note3, 32 GB Gold on 02.11.2016 from Amazon and opposite party No.2 gave a warranty of one year on the said mobile. That after few days of usage, major technical defects were found in the mobile set i.e Heating, charging and hanging issues. That the complainant through his friend namely Parveen Kumar had lodged the complaint with the opposite party No.1 but despite repeated repairs on 02.05.2017, 03.05.2017, 04.05.2017, 15.05.2017, 18.05.2017, 19.05.2017 by the OPs, defects could not be removed and on 19.05.2017 the friend of the complainant sent a legal notice on behalf of the complainant which was duly received by the OPs. Thereafter also so many complaints were made in the month of June 2017 and on 16.06.2017 the OP no.2 dispatched the new mobile phone but the replaced mobile was also not as per specifications of old mobile and on 08.07.2017 the OP NO.1 handed over another defected mobile phone instead of original one. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.11999/- as the cost of mobile set and also to pay Rs.70000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses etc. as explained in the relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.12.2017 of this Forum. Opposite parties No.2 in their reply has submitted that the opposite party No.2, in the present case, as a professional and goodwill gesture, has already settled the matter with the complainant by providing replacement of the alleged product in dispute with a new handset of the same model. The complainant thereafter never approached the OPNo.2 in connection with any issues in the replaced product and filed the present complaint. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C26 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the documents reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 02.11.2016 for a sum of Rs.11999/- and the defects appeared in the month of May 2017 and legal notice was issued to the OPs and after so many complaints, mobile was replaced by the OPs but the replaced mobile was not as per old mobile specifications so the complainant sent so many emails to the company to correct the IMEI number and to issue the job sheet but no response received from the OPs. As the defect appeared during warranty period and the replaced mobile was also not matched with the specifications of old mobile set of the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they are liable to refund the price of mobile set.
6. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.11999/- say Rs.12000/-(rounded off)(Rupees twelve thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.25.07.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile in question to the OP No.2/service centre at the time of payment by the OP No.2.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
12.10.2018.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
