Punjab

Sangrur

CC/652/2016

Shri Gurpal Singh Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

North India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Parmod Sexena

17 May 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 652                                                                                         

                                                                  Instituted on:   07.11.2016                                                                                 

                                                                 Decided on:    17.05.2017

 

Gurpal Singh Saini son of Lal Singh, resident of Ward No.24, Ram Nagar Basti, Opposite Rail Station, Sangrur.          

                                                        …. Complainant       

                                Versus

 

1.   North India Top Company (P) Limited Acron Warehouse & Logistic Park 68, village Kapriwas & Malpura, Rewari ( Haryana) through its Managing Director.                

 

2.   Binny Telecom, Court Road, Sangrur ( Authorized Service Centre) XOLO Care, Opp. Post Office, Sangrur.

 

3.   Home shop 18, 7th Floor, FC-24, Sector 16-A Film city, Noida -201301 (UP) through its Managing Director.

4.     Lava International Ltd. A-56, Sector-64, Noida-201301, Uttar Pardesh, India.

                                                ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Pooja Bahuguna Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.1&3  :      Shri S.S.Ratol, Advocate                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.2&4          :        Shri  Sandip Kumar   Advocate                         

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Gurpal Singh Saini, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Xolo Omega 13.97cm (5.5 inch) Octa core mobile in white colour  from OP no.1 for Rs.5699/- vide bill dated 04.05.2016 under one year warranty.  On 19.07.2016, the mobile phone all of sudden started to switch off and has to again restart for which the complainant approached the OP No.2 but no satisfactory services provided. Again set started giving same problem and OP no.2 issued  order no.510009742202. When the complainant received back the mobile phone it was physically damaged by the unqualified  engineers and unqualified persons during repair.  Again on 16.09.2016 the problems of heating and switched off occurred and OP no.2  issued work order no. 510010234731. On the next day the OP no.2 told that there is some fault in the mobile phone and for which he has to pay Rs.1000/- plus Rs.2000/- .  The complainant again approached OP no.1 on 26.09.2016  and on 12.10.2016  with the problem of charging  and the mobile phone was returned to the complainant after 10 days.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

 

i)      OPs be directed to replace the mobile phone in question with new one or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs.5699/- as price of mobile set along with interest @18% per annum,

 

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

 

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.15000/- on account of deficiency in service and to pay Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs no. 1&3, it is submitted that it is within the knowledge of the complainant that the product contains warranty period of one year and M/s Xolo Mobile which is subsidiary company of Lava International Limited and its authorized service centre are solely bound to provide after sales service subject to the terms and condition of the warranty card. The OP no.1 is not a manufacturer or the authorized service centre of the product in question. The OP no.3 is only an intermediary and provides a platform/venue to both sellers and buyers to buy and sell the products on such platform.  The OP no.3 role is to only book the product on behalf of the seller and deliver  it to the complainant.

3.             In reply filed by the OPs no.2 and 4, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, suppression of material facts, locus standi and cause of action have been taken. On merits, it is denied that the complainant bought  the mobile phone to OP no.2 on 19.07.2016. If the complainant visited to OP he should have the job sheet. It is denied that mobile phone had given any problem like auto restart, hang and any other problem if any such  problem switched off  due to manufacturing defect rather the mobile is giving the problem due to mishandling of the mobile set.       

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered an affidavits alongwith annexure 1 to 5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs no.1&3 have tendered documents Ex.OPs1&3 to Ex.OPs1&3/3 and Ex.OPs.2&4/1 and closed evidence.

5.             It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from the OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.5699/-. It is specific case of the complainant that on 19.07.2016 first time the mobile phone in question started giving problems of all of sudden started to switch off  and restart  and second time on 05.08.2016 again started giving same problems and third time on 16.09.2016  it started giving another problem of heating for which he visited the OP no.2 who is an authorized service centre of the OP no.4  but despite best efforts the OP no.2 failed to remove the defects rather it told the complainant that during repair the mobile phone get a major fault for which he has to pay Rs.1000/-  plus Rs.2000/-.  To prove his case the complainant has produced on record copies of  work orders issued by the OPs Annexure -I to III and V which show that the complainant have been visiting the OPs for removal of the defects so many times but the OP no.2 failed to rectify the same.  On the other hand the OPs only case is that mobile set is giving the problem due to mishandling of the mobile by the complainant himself but surprisingly the OPs have not produced record any documentary evidence which shows that the said problem occurred due to mishandling of the set in question by the complainant. To strengthen his case the complainant has cited a ruling namely Head Marketing and Communication, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and Others, 2007(1) CPJ 120 wherein the Hon'ble Union Territory State Commission Chandigarh  has held  that defects in the mobile set could not be rectified in spite of being repaired twice and as such handset suffered from inherent defects and the complaint was rightly allowed.

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint and the OPs no. 2 and 4 to replace the mobile set of the complainant with a new one of same model. We further order the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                        Announced

                May 17, 2017

 

 

 

 ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)      (Sarita Garg)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                 Member                      Member                      President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-