Haryana

Kurukshetra

251/2017

Rajbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sane retail - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

23 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.251 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 05.12.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:23.05.2018.

RAJBIR SINGH # 255 P, SECTOR-30, KURUKSHETRA-136118.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. SANE RETAILS PVT. LTD., 161 GF SECTOR-4, MDC PANCHKULA, HARYANA-124113.
2. MALHOTRA MOBILE SERVICE, VIDHATA COMPLEX OPPOSITE NEW BUS STAND KURUKSHETRA.
3. XIOMY TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., 8^TH FLOOR, TOWER NO.1, UMIYA BUSINESS BAY MARATHAHALLI SARJAPUR OUTER RING ROAD BANGLORE-560103 KARNATAKA INDIA.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Op No.1 exparte.

                Sh. Mohit Tayal, Adv. for Op No.2.

                Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Adv. for the Op No.3.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Rajbir against Sane Retails Pvt. Ltd. and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set from the Op No.1 through online for a sum of Rs.12,999/- vide invoice No.FAAW5C1800214828 dt.26.07.2017.  It is alleged that from the very beginning, the said mobile set became defective with the problems of display, touch problem, restarting problem, FM radio and voice etc.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.2 regarding the defective mobile set but the Op no.2 refused to repair the mobile set.  It is further alleged that the complainant also approached the Ops several times for replacement of defective mobile set but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to refund the amount of Rs.12,999/- or to replace the mobile set with the new one and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as Rs.7500/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 08.01.2018.  The Op No.2 is service-centre of Ops and being service-centre, there was no need for filing reply on behalf of Op No.2.  Op No.3 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant has not submitted any evidence such as a job-sheet in connection with any alleged visits to the authorized service centre of the Op No.3.  The complainant has not provided any evidence regarding manufacturing defects in the product.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Ld. counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. 

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             From the invoice, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 26.07.2017 for the sale consideration of Rs.12,999/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that the mobile set became defective within the guarantee period with the problems of display, touch problem, restarting problem, FM radio and voice etc.  The complainant has supported his versions by filing affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced with the new one from the Op No.3.

7.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.3 to replace the hand set of the complainant with the new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed to deposit the old hand set alongwith bill and accessories with the service center of the company.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.3.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:23.05.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member