BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.316 of 2016
Date of Institution : 14.12.2016
Date of Decision : 30.05.2019.
Anant Sethi son of Sh. Bharat Bhushan Sethi, resident of House No. 270 A-Block, New Mandi, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Rocket Commerce LLP, 4th Floor Plot Nos. 183 to 197 and 254 to 258, Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bomansandra Bangalore- 562 106 through its authorized signatory/ Incharge/ Responsent Person.
2. MI Care Centre, Parijat Complex, Parijat Chowk, Hisar through its proprietor/ manager/ authorized signatory.
3. Pick MI Service, Shop No.44-A to 47, Pushkar Industrial Estate, Opposite Rifle Club Phase-I, Gidc Vated, Ahamdabad- 382 445 Gujrat, through authorized Incharge/ Authorized Signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………. …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Complaint against ops no.1 and 3 dismissed as withdrawn vide order
dated 28.3.2019.
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant booked mobile set model No. MI5 white 32G amounting to Rs.24,999/- to the opposite party no.1 and receive invoice No.1462605643384524509 issued on 7.5.2016. The order was delivered on 10.5.2016 after payment of cash amount of Rs.25,798/-. That the complainant comfortably used the mobile set only for two months. In the first week of August, 2016, the said mobile set developed some manufacturing defects, which caused regular inconvenience, interruption to the complainant. The matter was online reported to the concerned complaint branch, which had given some tips for smooth functioning, which was accordingly done, but of no use and ultimately the representative of op no.1 advised to approach near customer care i.e. op no.2 at Hisar. The complainant alongwith his father went to Hisar Care Centre i.e. op no.2 and incharge of op no.2 after minutely examining the mobile set advised to charge the mobile set so that same could be further visualized for detecting the manufacturing defect. Then they went to Hisar again with fully charged mobile on 10.5.2016 and incharge and service engineer of op no.2 agreed for sending the same to op no.1 for final approval etc. and the complainant handed over the mobile under proper acknowledgment and receipt. The op no.2 issued receipt i.e. customer information slip and advised to contact after one week but thereafter op no.2 postponed the matter and thereafter, no positive response ever received by complainant. Ultimately, complainant reported the matter to the concern of MI known as Xiaomi India Customer Service on 6.9.2016 and also sent so many mails for knowing the recent status of the pending issue and surprisingly one Mr. Pardeep Kumar posing himself as an incharge sent a mail that he will help for payment option but without having any response, the status of complaint showed to be closed. That complainant personally went to op no.2 and inquired about the status of the mobile, who returned the mobile set on 12.9.2016 with the excuses that they are not having cable and other equipments for closely analyzing the manufacturing defect and further advised to send the mobile directly to op no.1. It is further averred that thereafter complainant contacted op no.1 but to no effect and complainant also contacted with op no.3 who advised to send the defective mobile after payment of Rs.189/-. The complainant paid the amount in favour of op no.3 and after due investigation, the op no.3 given the surprise/ shocking report i.e. tampered PCB. The complainant inquired the reason from ops no.2 and 3 with the logical question that earlier mobile set was handed over to op no.2 with complaint of software problem, then how the same has been converted into hardware problem but the ops failed to give any reply rather postponed the matter with lame excuses. That complainant approached the ops time and again and requested them to accept his claim and to make payment of the mobile set but the ops did not pay any heed and have refused to do so. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply asserting therein that appropriate name of op no.2 is HCL services ltd. It is submitted that on 28.8.2016, the complainant approached op no.2 with a complaint regarding the product. On examination by the service engineer, it was ascertained the product had dead pixel. The service engineer duly recorded the issue in service job sheet and provided the same to the complainant. After examining and reviewing the product, the defects related to dead pixelware duly and properly repaired by the technicians of op no.2 and the product was duly returned to the complainant without any cost under warranty conditions. It is further submitted that on 8.9.2016, the complainant approached the manufacturer, Xiaomi in connection with defects in the product and availed the Pickmi service offered by them. The product was duly picked by op no.3 and an inquiry number was generated. After the examination of the product by op no.3, it was ascertained that the print circuit board of the product was tampered and the product had suffered physical damage. The complainant was duly informed about the damage and the estimated costs for repairing the product, since the product was out of warrantee owing to physical damage to the PCB of the product. The complainant however refused to pay costs for repair of the tampered PCB. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. The complaint against ops no.1 and 3 was got dismissed as withdrawn on 28.3.2019 by learned counsel for complainant vide his separate statement for want of their correct addresses.
4. The complainant tendered his affidavit and documents. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.2 suffered a statement that reply filed on behalf of op no.2 be read in evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his allegations has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11.
7. On the other hand, op no.2 has not led any evidence in order to prove their defence plea except tendering of written statement on behalf of op no.2.
8. It is proved fact on record that complainant has purchased a mobile on 7.5.2016 through op no.1 for a sum of Rs.25,798/- which was delivered to him on 10.5.2016. As per allegations of complainant, he used mobile for two months and in the month of August, 2016, the mobile developed some manufacturing defect, as a result of which he approached ops time and again in order to get his mobile defect free but however, the ops had been avoiding to handle his mobile and to make it defect free. He approached op no.2 at Hisar and engineer of the service centre after carefully examining the mobile agreed for sending the same to op no.1 for final approval and received mobile set and issued receipt. Then complainant had been approaching op no.2 time and again but to no avail. Ultimately, he contacted op no.3 and on the advise of op no.3, the defective mobile was sent with payment of Rs.189/- but the mobile was returned with the report that “tampered PCB”
9. It is settled principle of law that it is legal obligation of the manufacturer, dealer and service center of the product to provide after sales services to the customer. In the present case, the ops were legally bound to provide after sales services to the complainant, but however, they continued to refer to one or the other on lame excuses. It is proved on record from the evidence of complainant that after two months of purchase of mobile, it became out of order. Though, op no.2 has alleged in its reply that it has tampered PCB, but however, op no.2 has not led any oral or documentary evidence in order to prove its defence plea except tendering written statement. They have not placed on record any opinion of the expert from which it could be presumed that PCB of the mobile was tampered. So, the evidence led by complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted and non providing of after sales services by ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
10. In view of above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite party no.2 to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set of complainant and to make same defect free even by replacing any defective part without any costs within 15 days from the date of receipt of mobile from the complainant and in case it is found that mobile is not repairable, then op no.2 is directed to replace the same with a new one of same make and model without costs within further period of 15 days from the receipt of report of irreparable. Further in case, it is found that same model of said mobile is not available, then op no.2 will be liable to refund the price of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.25,798/- to the complainant as per invoice Ex.C4. We further direct the op no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:30.05.2019. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
