Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 225
Instituted on : 09.05.2019.
Decided on : 02.07.2024.
Naveen Kumar s/o Sh. Kapur Chand aged 45 years, R/o 1004-A/19, Shakti Nagar, Green Road, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Quikr India Private Limited through it Managing Director, 106, Sub No.5,6,7,8 and 9, Rachanhaelli Village, 167 SRK Nagar, Post Krishnarajuram Hobli, Bangaluru, Pin-560045.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are he had purchased two quicker Assured mobiles phones i.e. LeEco Le Max 2 mobile vide invoice no.RJETAM1819007267 dated 15.02.2019 for Rs.4914/- and Samsung galaxy Note 4 vide invoice number RJETAM1819007261 dated 15.02.2019 for Rs.6487/-. The opposite party represented that the mobile phones carry 6 months free warranty and 7 day replacement guarantee. The phones were received by the complainant at his Rohtak address through courier service but on opening the phones, the condition of LeEco Le Max 2 mobile was not found as described and there was no warranty card in both the phones. The complainant took the matter with the respondent and they initially refused to admit that the phones carried 6 months warranty but after some exchange of email, conceded the aspect of providing 6 months warranty but still did not provide any warranty documents and refused to replace the LeEco Le Max 2 phone. The complainant requested the opposite party to take back the LeEco Le Max 2 mobile phone and to provide warranty of 6 months for the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 mobile phone but to no avail. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to take back the LeEco Le Max 2 mobile phone and to refund the amount of Rs.4914/-, to provide warranty of 6 months for the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 mobile phone and suitable compensation for not honoring its representations made on its website, to pay interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of receiving of amount by the opposite party till it is refunded back to the complainant and also to pay Rs.25000/- as compensation for causing harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party through registered post and the same was received back served. But none appeared on behalf of opposite party and opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.04.2021 of this Commission.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence on 24.03.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case date of purchase of product is 15.02.2019. As per complainant, opposite party had not provided the warranty on the product. As per email Ex.C7 dated 09.03.2019 opposite party has given explanation regarding the warranty policy i.e. “With regard to your concern, we would like to inform you that we do provide 7 days replacement policy but as this damage issue was highlighted to us after the SOP(Standard operating procedure)....We are sorry to let you know that your complaint does not meet our escalation criteria. Hence, we shall not be able to assist you further in this regard”. It is further submitted in this email that: “Whereas concerned to the 6 months warranty, we would like to inform you that the order does not consist of any warranty. For some refurbished category mobile the customer has to purchase the warranty at the time of placing an order. The customer can see the warranty option on the product page”. After that respondent officials again clarified the issue and resolved the same vide their email Ex.C7 dated 18.03.2019 mentioned at page no.4. The main contents of the mail are as under:- “As per our telephonic conversation, we would like to inform you that the free extended warranty was not added due to a technical glitch. But we had escalated the issue to the internal team and received an update that we are providing the 6 months extended warranty against the suborder ID 788132. We would also like to inform you that if the servicing cost is more than the invoice value, then the customer needs to bear the extra amount”. Meaning thereby the warranty issue was resolved by the opposite party on 18.03.2019. Thereafter complainant sent an email Ex.C6 dated 10.10.2019 to the opposite party about the defect in the Samsung Mobile. But this issue was raised after more than 6 months of its warranty period. Hence the same is not covered under warranty. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. 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:
02.07.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
...............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………………………
Vijender Singh, Member
