DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 796/2017
D.No.__________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
GAURAV SAHNI S/o Sh. SHADI LAL SAHNI,
R/o U-174, MANGOL PURI,
DELHI-110083. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1.M/S HCL SERVICES LTD.,
GF-12 POCKET E-1.
SECTOR-07, ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
2. M/S XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA (P) LTD.,
DLF CORPORATE PARK TOWER A UNIT 001
MG ROAD NEAR DRANACHARYA METRO STATION,
DLF PHASE-3, GURUGRAM, INDIA. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 25.09.2017
Date of decision:11.03.2019
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that the complainant had purchased a Redmi 3S (Gold, 16GB) mobile
CC NO.796/2017 Page 1 of 6
handset from Flipkart.com online shopping portal against Tax Invoice #F0YQI00817-00523407 dated 03/10/2016 for Rs.5,849/-. The complainant further alleged that the terms and conditions of service of the said mobile handset failed to give properly and two keys out of three keys stopped working and the issue was reported to OP-1 against the jobsheet no. WXIN1709020001759 dated 02.09.2017 and after an hour OP-1 asked him to deposit Rs.118/- and before paying money he urged OP-1 as to why they are charging and also he wanted to check his mobile handset before he paid. Now all three keys stopped responding and executive informed that it has liquid damage and the complainant said that if there was any liquid damaged it was induced by the Service Centre of OP-1, they used this strategy to generate revenues and many people are victim of this liquid damage racket in Xiaomi Service Centre and the speaker of said mobile handset was also sounded with disturbance. The complainant also alleged that the executive also commented that a drop of sweat may also damage the phone and he tried to convince that no court case can be established against HCL or Xiaomi and the service executive concluded that there is an expense of approximately Rs.6,000/- for mother board change plus Rs.118/- for liquid damage strategy whereas total cost of the phone was Rs.5849/-.The complainant walked out of the store in
CC NO.796/2017 Page 2 of 6
immense disappointment and executive of Xiaomi called that your mobile handset has gone out of warranty now. The complainant further alleged that he made abundant telephone calls to OP-1 executives Mr. Sudarshan and Mr. Vikas Koul and sent them several e-mails, and the e-mails were not responded in proper manner and there was no intension towards resolving issue in hand. Generating revenues from liquid damage racket seems the joint collaboration of OP-1 and OP-2 wherein support each other as both the parties are benefitted with this. The complainant further alleged that he had been harassed mentally and borne Monetary losses, he was physically tired by going to their service outlets time and again and he had to make and receive many important calls and with the issues listed above and it is not possible to use.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.5,849/- towards price of the said mobile handset as well as compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing him mental pain, agony, damages and harassment.
3. Noticeswere issued to OPs through speed post for appearance on 15.12.2017. As per track report, OP-1 avoided to receive the notice with the remarks “item delivery attempted unclaimed”and as per track report OP-2 has been served on 06.11.2017. But despite
CC NO.796/2017 Page 3 of 6
service none has appeared on behalf of OPs and as such OPs have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.08.2018.
4. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of Tax Invoice vide no.#F0YQI00817-00523407 dated 03.10.2016 of Rs.5849/- issued by Shreyash Retail Pvt. Ltd. and copy of service jobsheet no. WXIN1709020001759 dated 09.02.2017 issued by OP-1 copies of e-mail communication between the complainant and the OPs.
5. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the lightof evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant.The case of the complainant has remainedconsistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The complainant has made so many complaints and personally visited & requested to OP-1 but OP-1 could neitherrepair nor replace the mobile handset nor refunded the amount of the mobile handset which proves deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Moreover, it appears that even after receiving notices ofthis case from this forum, the OPs have kept mum and have not bothered to answer the case of the complainant. It also shows that OPs have no defence at all.
6. On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint dated 02.09.2017 of his mobile handset toOP-1 within
CC NO.796/2017 Page 4 of 6
warranty period and submitted the mobile handset on 02.09.2017 vide jobsheet no.WXIN1709020001759 dated 02.09.2017. But could not be repaired and demanded money for repair despite the fact the mobile handset was in warrantee. It amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Thus, the case of the complainant is proved. We accordingly hold OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.However, it has come on record that the complainant has used the mobile handset for a period of about 11 months.
7. Accordingly, OPs jointly or severally are directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- being the depreciated value of the mobile handset on return of disputed mobile handset accessories, original invoice and job sheets.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,500/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation.
8. The above amount shall be paid by OPs jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OPs fail to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, thecomplainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 11th day of March, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC NO.796/2017 Page 6 of 6
