Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/164/2018

AMIT SAWHNEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

VIJAY SAJGOTRA

24 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

         (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

 

                                                          .

 Case File  No.               06/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution     10-04-2018

 Date of Decision          17-10-2018

 

Amit Sawhney,

S/O Sh.Om Parkash Sawhney,

R/O H.No.129 Morning Today Newspaper,

Upper Bazar Panjtirthi Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                                -Complainant

                 V/S

1.Naresh Kumar PSV Solutions,

  Ist Floor Extn,.7 Near Dogra

  Higher Secondary School,

Shastri Nagar Jammu J&K.

2.Amazon Bridge Gateway

  8^th Floor,26/1 Dr.Raj Kumar Road,

 Banglore3-560055 through Managing Director.

3.Red Mi 4A(Gold) 16 GB through MD

  5^th Floor Block Delhi Block Embassy Tech.Square Inside

Lessna Business Park Marathahali Outer Ring Road,

                                                                                                                                                -Opposite parties

CORAM:

                  Khalil Choudhary             (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                               Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                                       Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

  

Mr.Vijay Sajgotra,Advocate for complainant, present.

Nemo for OP 1&2

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for OP3,present.

.

                                                       

                                                                  ORDER

 

                         Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that; complainant is said to have purchased  mobile phone make Redmi 4A(Gold 16 GB),on,16-04-2017,against sale consideration of Rs.5999/-from OP2(copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-A)According to complainant, immediately after purchase the handset, became non functional due to some kind of manufacturing defect, complainant approached OP1 for repair of handset, who in turn received the handset and assured him that the handset had some minor defect and come after one or two days,accordingly,complainant went to OP1 for taking the delivery of handset, but OP1 told him that the defect in the handset could not be detected and they returned the handset non functional. Allegation of complainant is that he apprised OP1 that the handset which he had purchased just before 11 months back is under warranty,as such the OPs are under an obligation to provide services,but on the contrary the OP openly told him that they are unable to repair the repeatedly approached OP3 for redressal of his grievance, but all in vain. Further allegation of complainant is that he has been cheated by the Ops firstly by selling defective handset and thereafter causing harassment and had made to suffer from pillar to post for getting his handset repaired from the service centre. Complainant also submits that neither defects have been removed by Ops, nor redressed his grievance, which according to complainant constitutes deficiency in service,therefore,prays for refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs.28,000/and in addition, also prays for compensation of Rs.1,15,000/including litigation charges.

           On the other hand,OP3 filed written version and resisted the complaint  on the ground that OP1 is an authorized service centre of Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.Ltd.in the present case OP3.OP2 is an e-commerce company. The OP3 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 2013 and was incorporated in India on October 7,2014 having its principal place at Building Orchid-Block-E,Embassy Tech Village,Devarabisanahahalli,Marathahalli Outer Ring Road,Bengaluru-560 103.The OP3 is engaged in the marketing, sale and service inter alia of mobile phones in India under the brands Mi and Xiaomi.The complainant has alleged purchased a phone sold under the Mi brand,namely,Redmi 4A mobile phone for Rs.5,999/.All Mi and Xiaomi brand mobile phones sold within India are sold under a standard set of warranty terms and conditions .n March,14,2018 complainant approached the authorized service centre of OP3 with issues related to the product. On examination by the service engineer, it was ascertained that the Product was facing issue related to Abnormal Launcher Function, in the Product. The service engineer duly recorded the issue in service job sheet No.WXIN1803140007558 and provided the job sheet to the complainant(Annexure-C)After examining and reviewing the product at the service centre, the defects related to to Abnormal Launcher Function was duly repaired by replacing the main board by the technicians of the authorized service centre of OP3 as per the standard warranty conditions and the product was duly returned to complainant in proper working condition.

                     In so far as OP,1&2 are concerned, despite notice did not take any action to represent their  case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period, provided under the Act. Thereafter, the right of the OP,1&2 to file reply was closed by this Forum vide order dated, 27-07-2018.

                      Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Sudesh Kumar. Complainant has placed on record, copy of bill and copy of service record.

                                      On the other hand,OP3 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Mr.Saneer BS Rao Authorised Representative of Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.Ltd.

                      We have perused case file and heard L/Cs appearing for the parties at length.

                    To be brief, allegation of complainant is that he purchased  handset from OP2,but within warranty period, handset was marred by defects,however,despite repeated requests,OPs failed to remove  the alleged defects. On the other hand,Op,1 &2 despite service of notice, did not choose to defend themselves before the Forum,therefore,their right to file written version was closed.                  

                           In so far as, allegation of complainant regarding defects in the handset are concerned and failure of OP,1&2 to remove alleged defects, same went unchallenged from OP,1&2 side.

                 In support of his allegations, complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Sudesh Kumar which are verbatim reproduction of contents of complaint,therefore,need no reiteration. Complainant has also placed on record copy of tax invoice.            

               On the other hand, OP, 1&2 despite being duly served, failed to take any action to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of the complainant or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by OP, 1&2 in this complaint and there is also no evidence to rebut the case of the complainant. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 (2) (b) (ii)of the Consumer Protection Act,1987, which provides that in a case where the Op1&2 omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-Clause (ii) of the Section 11, of Act of 1987, clearly, provides that when OP, 1&2 omits or fails to take any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                      From perusal of the documentary evidence and affidavits filed by complainant, it is found that complainant has succeeded in proving his case, against OP 1&2 despite making repeated requests, therefore, a case is made out by complainant for deficiency in service on the part of OP 1&2,in not redressing his grievance.

                  Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded in proving deficiency in service on the part of OPs,1&2,as such,OPs 1&2 are directed to refund cost of handset to the tune of Rs.5,999/-to the complainant, who in turn returned the handset with all accessories to OP1&2. OPs 1&2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-to the complainant. The awarded amount be deposited in this Forum within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Announced                                                 (Khalil Choudhary)                                         

 17-10-2018                                                (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

 Agreed by                                                      President                                                      

                                                                       (District Consumer Fourm)

Ms.Vijay Angral                                                 Jammu.

Member

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member