Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 506.

                                                          Instituted on     : 19.09.2016.

                                                          Decided on       : 20.03.2018.

Ankur Taneja R/o 952/22, Jhang Colony, Rohtak through his authorized namely Sonika Jangra

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. M/s Rocket Kommerce LLP XIAOMI(imported phone) MI Authorised Seller in India, 4^th Floor, plots no.183 to 197 & 254 to 258 BOMMASANDRA Jigani Link Road, BOMMASANDRA Industrial Area, Bommasandra, Bangalore-562106.
2. MI Care centre, HCF24 HUDA Complex, 1^st Floor, Rohtak.
3. Xiaomi India c/o IKEA Business Centre 8^th Floor, Umiya Business Bay Tower 1, Cessna Business Park, Kadubeesanahalli, Marathahalli-sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore-560103.

                                                          ……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

Present:       Ms. Sonika Jangra, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite party No.1 & 2 exparte.

                   Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.3.

                                      ORDER

RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased a mobile set through Amazon Shopping Portal for Rs.11999/- vide invoice no.1463657698083524519 dated 19.05.2016 with one year warranty. That on 10.06.2016 there was white blank display problem in the mobile and he visited the service centre at Rohtak and it was told that the alleged problem cannot be solved  by the service centre so the respondent is sending the same to the Head office of XIAOMI  for replacement but after two and half weeks the same mobile was handed over to the complainant. That the same problem appeared again but despite his repeated requests, mobile phone was neither repaired nor replaced by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint with prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the said mobile phone with new one or to refund the price of mobile set and to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation with litigation fee to the complainant. 

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to O.P.No.2 received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of OP No.2. Notice sent to opposite party No.1 through registered cover not received back in any form. As such opposite party No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.10.2016 and 06.02.2017 of this Forum respectively.   Opposite party no.3 filed its written reply submitting therein that the  complainant himself has not provided any proof such as a job sheet regarding the alleged visits to the respondent No.2.  That the complainant has not provided any evidence to prove or demonstrate manufacturing defect in the product. Mere allegations and unsupported averments in the complaint regarding manufacturing defects in the product cannot be held against the respondent No.3. 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.C6 and closed the evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence.

4.                          Arguments heard and file perused.

5.                          There is no rebuttal to the evidence that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 19.05.2016 for a sum of Rs.11999/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C1 and as per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant he approached the service centre for repair of his mobile phone on 10.06.2016, 26.05.2016 and 23.07.2016 for some defects in the mobile set and the same is not rebutted by the service centre as it has not come present despite service of notice. As the defects appeared within warranty period and even after the repair of the mobile phone, complainant is not satisfied and since he has lost faith in the product of company, the complaint is allowed with refund of price of mobile set after deduction of 10% depreciation on it.

6.                          Accordingly it is directed that complainant shall hand over the mobile set to the opposite parties and in turn opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set of Rs.11999/- less Rs.1199/-(depreciation) i.e. Rs.10800/-(Rupees ten thousand eight hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.19.09.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

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:

20.03.2018.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.