Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 329.
Instituted on : 02.06.2017.
Decided on : 01.07.2019.
Sonia age 23, d/o Anand, Pana-Mailwan, VPO Bohar, District Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- MI Service centre, 2063, Delhi Road, Model Town, Rohtak-124001(Haryana).
- Xiomi India c/o Ikeva Business Centre 8th Floor Umrya Business Bay Tower No.1, Cassna Business Park, Kadubeesanahalli marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer ring road, Bangalore-560103.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Rinku Jangra, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 already exparte.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased a mobile phone of MI model Note-3 for a sum of Rs.11999/- vide IMEI No.862188038556320 vide invoice dated 12.09.2016. That complainant was facing technical problems relating to hanging issue, application start open automatically, poor battery life, WI-Fi not detecting, camera hanging, shutdown without giving any command, software issue, poor range etc. and therefore, complainant went to the service centre and every time the officials just format it and returned it back to complainant and issued bar code on dated 17.03.2017 and kept the mobile for 7 days. Thereafter on 10.04.2017 phone was again handed over to the opposite party for repair but problem of complainant’s mobile could not be resolved by the opposite parties. That complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the mobile set but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of mobile phone i.e. Rs.11999/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.10000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.07.2017 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that on 17.03.2017, the complainant approached the respondent no.1 with an issue in the product. Specifically, the issue related to auto reboot on standby in the product. The service engineer duly recorded the issue in service job sheet and provided the same to the complainant. That after examining and reviewing the product at the service center, the defects related to auto reboot on standby of the product were duly and properly repaired by the technicians of the respondent no.1, and the product was duly delivered to the complainant, without any charge under the warranty terms and conditions, in proper working condition. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2 as the authorized service centre of respondent no.2 duly received the complainant’s product, examined it for defects and repaired the product as necessary, in accordance with the warranty terms and conditions as applicable and under which the product was sold. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on dated 16.11.2018. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 in its evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on 29.01.2019.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant had purchased the mobile set on 12.09.2016 and as per copy of email Ex.C2, there were technical problems relating to hanging issue, poor battery back up and software issues and as per this mail, complainant has made so many complaints and no job sheet was issued by the service centre. It is also observed that the defects appeared in the mobile set within six months of its purchase but the same could not be removed by the opposite parties within warranty period which proves deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such opposite party i.e. manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 40% depreciation on it, as the complainant has used the mobile set uninterruptedly for six months.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.2 to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 40% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.7200/-(Rupees seven thousand two hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 02.06.2017 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving of awarded amount.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.07.2019.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
