Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 674
Instituted on : 15.11.2021
Decided on : 25.11.2024
Happy Dua age 32 years, s/o Sh. Sunil Kumar Dua r/o H.No.881/13, Salara MohallaNear Police Station, Rothak-124001, Haryana.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- Reliance Retail Ltd. Reliance Digital, 1015A & 1018, Ward No.22.Minar Party Hall, Near Mansarover Park, Delhi Road, Rohtak, Haryana-124001, Ph.01262-251134/35, XCIN No.U01100MH1999PLC120563.
- Dhingra Services, 1st Floor, Narayana Complex, Opp. Pillar No.21, Chotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak-124001.
- Redmi (Xiomi) Regional office: ABW Tower, 6th Floor, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Near IFCO Chowk, Gurugram, Haryana-122001.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.YogenderDalal, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.KunalJuneja, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Opposite party No.2 given up.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had purchased a RedmiNote 9 4 64 IMEI No.860377045538502, bill no.379010320500580 dated 13.11.2020 for Rs.11499/- from the opposite party No.1. After few days of its purchase, the complainant suffered problems in the alleged phone. The screen of the mobile used to go black and complainant deposited his mobile set with the opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 told the complainant that they have put sensors in the alleged mobile and there will be no problem now and returned the same to the complainant. Thereafter the phone started heating on 28.10.2021 and this time, opposite party no.2 updated the software and returned the same to the complainant. But the problem could not be resolved and complainant again contacted the opposite party No.2 on 11.11.2021and this time also they asked to update the software but the problem was not resolved. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that opposite party no.3 may kindly be directed to return the cost of mobile set Rs.11499/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and also to pay Rs.30000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint,notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 appeared and in preliminary objections of its reply has submitted that opposite party no.1 is a retailer and sells the products of opposite party No.3 whichis separate legal entity & opposite party no.3 has no concern with the opposite party No.1 being separate legal entity. Complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No.1 as no cause of action has arisen against the opposite party No.1. Opposite party no.1 is neither the manufacturer of the product nor contributes to the process of manufacturing at any state. As such complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No.1. On merits of the case, it is submitted that the contents of the complaint are related to opposite party No.2 and hence needs no reply. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 was given up by the complainant being unnecessary party vide its statement dated 10.03.2023.
4. Opposite party No.3 appeared and in preliminary objections of its reply has submitted that on 15th April 2021, the complainant approached the authorized service centre of the respondent no.3 for the first time with an issue related to the product. Wherein, the technician of the service centre of the respondent no.3 examined and inspected the product. After examining and inspecting the product at the authorized service centre, the product was duly repaired and returned to the complainant in proper working condition for free of cost. On 27.10.2021, the complainant again approached the service centre of opposite party No.3 with an issue related to the product. Wherein, the technician of the authorized service centre of the respondent no.3 examined and inspected the product. After examining and inspecting the product, the same was duly repaired and returned to the complainant in proper working condition for free of cost. On merits of the case, it is submitted that the mobile of the complainant was duly repaired by the authorized service centre of respondent no.3 on 15.04.2021 and 27.10.2021 respectively and returned to the complainant in proper condition for free of cost on both the occasions. Therefore, the respondent no.3 is not at any deficiency in service in the present complaint. It is prayed the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
5. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on dated 01.12.2023. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/A and closed his evidence on 05.07.2024. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.3 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on 19.11.2024.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case, the complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 13.11.2020 for Rs.14999/- as is proved from the copy of invoice placed on record as Ex.C2. As per job sheet Ex.R1 dated 15.04.2021, there was fault of ‘No signal or service’ in the alleged mobile set and as per job sheet Ex.C3/Ex.R2, dated 27.10.2021 there was ‘sensor fault’ in the alleged mobile set and the mobile set is in warranty. The defects in the mobile set appeared within warranty period but as per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the same could not be removed properly despite repair by the opposite parties. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.3 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant after deduction of 50% depreciation on it, at the complainant has used the mobile set uninterruptedly for more than 11 months i.e. to pay Rs.5750/-(rounded of) (Rs.11499/- less 50%).
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 to refund the amount of Rs.5750/-(Rupees five thousand seven hundred and fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.11.2021 till its realisation. Opposite party No.3 is further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
9. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
10. 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:
25.11.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
