DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.485 of 2015

                                                Date of institution:  18.09.2015                                         Date of decision   :  03.10.2016

Tarun Sharma son of Vinod Kumar resident of House No.1011, Phase 3-B-II, Mohali, Punjab.

 ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     M/s. Xolo Care through its Managing Director, Milliondots EcOM 11p, H.No.47, Rainbow Rakhi, Barnaby Road, Tamil Nadu City, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

2.     M/s. Xolo Care through its Director/Regional Manager, Head Office A-56, Sector 64, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

3.     M/s. Eiko Infosys Pvt. Limited through its Director, SCF No.43, Phase-V, Mohali, Punjab.

                                                           ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14

of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Opposite parties ex-parte.

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant, Tarun Sharma son of Vinod Kumar resident of House No.1011, Phase 3-B-II, Mohali, Punjab, have filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant on 03.01.2015 placed online order through Snapdeal  for purchase of dual sim mobile phone make Xolo 8x 1100 colour black. Payment of Rs.12,961/- was made by the complainant at the time of delivery of the mobile. After two months of its purchase the mobile started stopped functioning with the problem of outgoing voice and other problems. The complainant informed the OPs through their customer care centre at Sector 32, Chandigarh. OP No.1 sent the mobile set  to OP No.2  who handed over the new handset to the complainant on 23.06.2015 in lieu of the earlier defective handset. However, the replaced handset also started giving problems and again on 17.08.2015 the complainant took it to OP No.3. OP No.3 returned the handset to the complainant on 25.08.2015 after removing the defects. However, after a period of 20 days the problem reoccurred in the handset and the complainant took it to OP No.3 who set it to OP No.2. After some days   the handset was returned to the complainant with the assurance that it will not give any problem in future and will work smoothly. But about a week thereafter some defect occurred in the camera of the handset.  Due to defects in the handset the complainant is unable to enjoy its benefits. The complainant tried to contact the OPs on their given phone numbers but nobody picked his phone.

Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund him Rs.12,961/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum;  to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.

3.             As per the India Post report notice sent to OP No.1 and 2 delivered on 12.10.2015 and 10.10.2015. However, none appeared from them and thus they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.11.2015. Notice was sent to OP No.3 through e-mail and there was no report of failed message. However, none appeared for OP No.3 also. Hence, OP No.3 was also proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.02.2016.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of DO letter Ex.C-1; computer generated retail invoice Ex.C-2; computer generated receipts Ex.C-3 and C-4 and e-mail Ex.C-5.

5.             The complainant has argued that immediately after its receipt, the mobile handset is giving problem and he has not been able to enjoy its benefits. Initially the OPs replaced the handset with a new one but that too started giving problems in its functioning and the complainant had to take the handset to the customer care centre of the OPs repeatedly but the problem could not be removed. Thus, due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant deserves the relief claimed in the complaint.

6.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written as well as oral submissions of the complainant. The OPs were given ample opportunities to appear and contest the complaint. However, none appeared for them which shows that they have nothing to say regarding the averments of the complaint. The OPs firstly replaced the handset with a new one as the earlier handset was handing defects which could not be cured. However, the second replaced handset was also having problems and the complainant had to take it repeatedly to the customer care centre of the OPs which is well established from the documents Ex.C-3 to C-5.

                Accordingly, we direct the OPs to refund to the complainant Rs.12,961/- (Rs. Twelve thousand nine hundred sixty one only). We also find that the complainant is entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) on account of mental agony and litigation cost.  The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.            

                The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order otherwise the OPs shall be liable to pay 8% interest per annum on the total cost awarded.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 22.09.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 03.10.2016    

                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)           

President

        (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member