BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer complaint no. 240 of 2023.
Date of Institution: 05.06.2023.
Date of Decision: 10.10.2024
Kartik, aged 19 years son of Shri Amit Kumar, resident of village Ramgarh, PO Risaliakhera, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. Mob. No. 94163-71596.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Sachin Telecom, Main Chowk, Goriwala, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, through its Proprietor.
2. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, AKR Infinity, Sy. No. 113, Krishna Raddy Industrial Area, 7th Mile, Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560 068, through its authorized person.
3. M.S. Enterprises, Ground Floor, Gali Khai Wali, Hissaria Bazar, Near Parshuram Chowk, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Incharge/ Manager. Mob. No. 99910 08646.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR ……………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR ……………………MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………………MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Ravi Balhara and Sh. Amandeep Kamboj, Advocates for opposite party no.1. Opposite parties no.2 and 3 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that on 11.06.2022, the complainant visited the op no.1 and desired to purchase a brand new mobile for his personal use. The op no.1 recommended him to purchase the latest Redmi 10T mobile and assured about its working, workmanship and performance and accordingly being influenced with the recommendation of op no.1 he purchased new Redmi 10T mobile for a sum of Rs.12,000/- and op no.1 issued cash memo no. 371 dated 11.06.2022 for the same. That however in May, 2023 the above mobile developed defects in it and it stopped working. The mobile became dead stopped and could not be put on. The complainant visited op no.1 and reported the above defect to op no.1 whereupon op no.1 told him to take the mobile to care center of company i.e. op no.3. It is further averred that thereafter on 24.05.2003, the complainant made contact with op no.3 and op no.3 issued Token No. M6091490 to the complainant and gave the appointment for 26.05.2023. That on 26.05.2023, the complainant visited op no.3 and reported above defect in the mobile. The op no.3 required the cash memo of mobile from complainant and he gave photostat copy of the same but op no.3 after perusing the said cash memo refused to entertain the complaint of complainant saying that said cash memo does not have the CST number and required him to bring the cash memo having GST number. Thereafter, on 26.05.2023 the complainant visited the op no.1 and asked for GST cash memo for above mobile, but op no.1 refused to issue the GST cash memo to him. It is further averred that op no.1 at the time of sale of said mobile to complainant was fully aware of the fact that GST cash memo is required to be issued for the said mobile in order to avail service in future or claim in case of any defect in the mobile but op no.1 intentionally and malafidely did not issue the GST cash memo to the complainant and has indulged itself in unfair trade practice. That mobile of complainant is now lying dead and he is unable to put it on and to make use of the same, so he has been deprived of making use of said mobile for which he has incurred huge amount of Rs.12,000/- and in this manner, the op no.2 has manufactured a defective mobile and op no.1 has sold defective mobile to him and op no.3 has failed to give proper service to the complainant and as such ops have caused deficiency in service and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that M/s Sachin Telecom is the authorized dealer for the sale of various mobile phones of various companies but not deals in any service/ replacement of mobile phones of any type of manufactured or marketed by Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. The answering op no.1 sold the mobile in question in a packed box by Xiomi, which was later on opened by complainant and there is no question of selling a defective mobile on the part of op no.1 as it was sealed and packed by op no.2. It is clearly mentioned in the cash/ credit memo no. 371 in clause no.3 that warranty by manufacturer only. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has not visited to answering op no.1 for mobile defects because if the mobile developed defects, the company/ manufacturer is responsible for the aforesaid defect. It is further submitted that complainant produced the photocopy of mobile bill to op no.3 and due to this reason the op no.3 neglected and denied the service of the mobile, as at that time op no.1 was not having the printed GST bills/ memo of the shop but op no.1 never denied the complainant to give new bill with GST number but complainant never approached the op no.1 after purchasing the said mobile, so the liability of said mobile is on ops no.2 and 3 and they both are liable for said defect. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 prayed for.
4. Ops no.2 and 3 did not appear despite delivery of notices and as none appeared on their behalf, so they were proceeded against exparte.
5. The complainant has tendered copies of documents i.e. bill dated 11.06.2022 Ex.C1, broacher/ document regarding features of mobile in question Ex.C2 and email Ex.C3.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Kapil Proprietor as Ex. RW1/A and copy of bill Ex.R1.
7. We have heard complainant and learned counsel for the party no.1 and have gone through the case file.
8. Admittedly the complainant had purchased the mobile in question from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.12,000/- on 11.06.2022 and has alleged defect in the mobile in question for the first time in the month of May, 2023 i.e. after about 11 months of purchase of mobile in question. However, there is no any evidence in the shape of any expert opinion that mobile is having any manufacturing defect in it. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the mobile in question, it could not have worked for 11 months. Moreover, complainant has failed to substantiate his said plea through any cogent and convincing evidence and as such it cannot be said at all that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile and some normal wear and tear after use of mobile for such a long period can not be said manufacturing defect. So, the complainant has failed to prove his case on record. Moreover, op no.1 was ready to give a new bill with GST number as at the relevant time it had no printed GST cash memo but there is nothing on file to prove the fact that complainant ever approached op no.1 after purchase of mobile or that op no.1 ever refused to give him bill with GST number. There is also nothing on file to prove the fact that op no.2 refused to entertain the complaint of complainant as he was not having cash memo with GST number.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President,
Dated:10.10.2024 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
