Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 254.
Instituted on : 10.05.2016.
Decided on : 09.03.2018.
Jogender Singh s/o Satbir R/o H.No.1655 Sector-3 backside of Sky Mall, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Shri Hari Computer Solutions Service Centre, 866-22, Near Bajrang Bhawan Mandir, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its proprietor.
- W.S.Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. Warehouse Address 42/1, 43, Kacherakanahalli village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Banglore through its Proprietor.
- Xiaomi India c/o Ikeva Business Centre, 8th Floor, Umiya Business, Bays Tower-I, Cessna Business Park Kadubeesanahalli, Marathahalli, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bangalore-560103.
- Beetel Teletech Limited 1st Floor, Plot No.16 Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon-122015(Haryana) through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.K.Dahiya, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3.
Sh.Sandeep Kaushik, Advocate for opposite party No.4.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a MI41-339-M141-16G-Dual Sim Mobile phone from opposite party No.2 by placing online order through Flipkart website on 14.05.2015 and same was supplied to the complainant vide IMEI serial No.866376020936107 for a sum of Rs.12999. That after few days of its purchase, the mobile set giving problems of charging. The complainant approached the service centre of opposite parties at Gurgaon and the handset was changed with new IMEI No.866376022721903 but the said problem again started, which was also changed by the service centre. Complainant again deposited the set with the opposite party no.1 as it was having network, hanging, MIC problems and complainant made various emails to the opposite parties to replace the set but despite his repeated requests, neither the mobile phone has been replaced nor the amount has been refunded to the complainant. Hence this complaint with prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund the cost of mobile set i.e. Rs.12999/- alongwith compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to O.P.No.1 received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and as such opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.06.2016 of this Forum. Opposite party no.2 has submitted that answering opposite party is merely a seller and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party. Opposite party no.3 has submitted that they have no information from HCL regarding the replacement being provided to the complainant twice. That the complainant approached the opposite party two times and on both the occasions the product was delivered in proper working to the complainant. Opposite party No.4 has submitted that answering opposite party has nothing to do with the after sale services of the Brand.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 and closed his evidence. Evidence of opposite party no.4 was closed by the order dated 07.12.2017 of this Forum.
4. Arguments heard and file perused.
5. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 14.05.2015 for a sum of Rs.12999/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C1 and as per job sheets Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 the problems in the handset appeared only after two months of its purchase regarding network problem, hanging issue and MIC not working. After replacement of the mobile phone also, the problems could not be resolved. It is observed that the defects in the alleged mobile set appeared within warranty period and the same could not be rectified by the service centre despite repeated repairs.
7. On the other hand contention of opposite party no.2 & 3 is that there was no problem in the handset in question but to prove its contention, no expert report has been placed on record by the opposite parties. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and it develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous”. In view of the aforesaid law which is applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed it is a fit case where the refund of price is justified. Hence the complaint is allowed.
8. As such it is directed opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e Rs.12999/-(Rupees twelve thousand nine hundred ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.05.2016 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. However the complainant is directed to handover the mobile set in question to the opposite parties.
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:
09.03.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………
Ved Pal, Member
