DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 323
Instituted on: 01.08.2018
Decided on: 01.03.2021
Ashwani Jindal son of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, resident of H.No.184, Ward No.7-A, Pathshala Mohalla, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. Sane Retail Private Limited, Plot No.129, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Panchkula (Haryana) through its Managing Director.
2. XIOMI Technology India Private Limited, 8th Floor, Tower-I, Umiya Business Bay, Marathahali, Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangluru, through its Managing Director.
3. Flipkart India Private Limited, Bilaspur Pataudi Road, Near Bilaspur Chowk at NH-8, Opposite TATA Service Centre, Bilaspur (Haryana) through its Managing Director/Manager.
….Opposite parties
For the complainant: :Shri Vinay Jindal,Adv.
For the OP No.1&3 :J.S.Moudgill, Adv.
For the OP NO.2 :Shri Parampal Singh, Adv.
Quorum: Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
Shri V.K.Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
FACTS
1. Shri Ashwani Jindal, complainant has filed this complaint pleading that the complainant got booked one Redmi Note 4 64 GB mobile set with OP number 3 on their website from Dhuri and the same was successfully placed vide order ID number OD109870290077737000 on 4.8.2017 by paying an amount of Rs.12,999/- to the OPs. The said mobile is manufactured by OP number 2 and OP number 1 is the retailer of OP number 2. The mobile set in question was having one year warranty. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant received the mobile set in question at Dhuri. It is further averred that the mobile set in question started creating problems of hanging and auto restart in the month of December, 2017 and when the call was made by the complainant, then the mobile set started automatically restart and some time switched off and never switch on. As such the complainant approached the service centre of the Ops at Sangrur for removing the said defect, who told that there is software problem and after installation of the same, the officials of the service centre handed over the mobile set to the complainant. Further in the month of January, 2018, the mobile set started to give the same problem again and the complainant approached the service centre and requested to rectify the defect in the mobile set and after checking the service centre officials told that there is manufacturing defect and the mobile set cannot be repaired. Though the mobile set in question was under warranty but the Ops failed to remove the defect nor the mobile set was replaced with a new one. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to refund the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.12,999/- along with interest and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
WRITTEN VERSION
2. In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed with malafide intention to harass the OP, that the OP does not sell any products to end consumers, that the OP is not manufacturer of the mobile set in question. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands as the OP number 1 is not directly selling any products to the consumers rather the OP number 2 sells the product through OP number 3 i.e. Flipkart.
3. In reply filed by Op number 2, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question on 4.8.2017. However, it is stated that the complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature and has concocted a false story. It is further averred that the complainant has not submitted any evidence such as job sheet in connection with any alleged visits to the service centre of OP number 2 and the complainant has not provided any evidence regarding manufacturing defects in the product and as such the complainant has misled this Commission. As such, the OP number 2 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.
4. In reply filed by Op number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious and has been filed with malafide intention to harass the OP, that the OP does not sell any product to end consumers and that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. On merits, it is stated that the complaint be dismissed as there has been no transaction between the complainant and the OP nor the complainant is a consumer of the OP under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Lastly, the OP number 3 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
5. The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant placed an order with the OP number 3 for purchasing a mobile set and paid an amount of Rs.12,999/-. The said mobile set was manufactured by Op number 2 and the OP number 1 is the retailer. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that the mobile set was having one year warranty. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the OPs dispatched the mobile set in question vide invoice dated 4.8.2017. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that in the month of December, 2017 the mobile set in question suffered with the problem of hanging and auto restart as such the complainant approached the service centre of OP number 2 at Sangrur, but the defect in the mobile set could not be rectified as such the service centre officials refused to set right the mobile set in question saying that it was having manufacturing defect.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 2 has argued that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question as the complainant has not submitted any job sheet along with the complaint. The learned counsel for the OP number 2 further argued that the complaint is false and has been filed with malafide intention and the same be dismissed with special costs.
8. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1 and has deposed as per the complaint. Ex.C-2 is tax invoice issued by Sane Retails Private Limited, Ex.C-3 is the expert report issued by Damanjit Singh of Singh Connectivity wherein he has stated that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set and due to that reason mobile was giving the problem of hanging and auto switch off . Shri Damanjit Singh also tendered his affidavit Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 is the certificate of Damanjit Singh. To support the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Raghbir Singh versus M/s. Eicher Tractors & others 2010(1) CPC 444 (Punjab State Commission) wherein the complainant purchased a tractor from OP- Engine of said tractor was defective as it did not take proper load- compressor was also not working properly- tractor became totally unworkable and unrepairable after running for 415 hours. Defect was duly proved from report of experts. Moreover, tractor could not be put to use for want of registration as it could not be taken to the District Transport Officer. Manufacturing and mechanical defect well proved from evidence on record. Respondents directed to return the price of tractor i.e. Rs.2,18,000/- with 9% interest per annum with compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Complaint allowed with cost of Rs.5000/-.
9. The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited M/s. XOLO Care through its Director versus Tarun Sharma 2017(2) CPJ 228 (Punjab State Commission) Mobile set purchased online-manufacturing defect. Hand set replaced. Mobile set again started creating problem. Complaint filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complaint allowed by Distt. Forum. Appeal against same. Held, it is duty of reputed/established manufacturer to replace such mobile set. OPs failed to rectify problem in mobile set. Deficiency proved. Order passed by Distt Forum held proper. Hence, affirmed.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/1 of Mr. Mahesh Kumar and has deposed as per the complaint. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has also produced affidavit of Sameer BS Rao and he has deposed as per the written version of the OP number 2. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has also produced affidavit of Shri Satyajeet Bhattacharya and has deposed as per the written version.
11. As per the document Ex.C-2 the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question on 4.8.2017 for Rs.12,999/-. As already stated above the report of expert is Ex.C-3, so from the expert report and his affidavit, it is clear that the mobile set in question sold by the OPs was defective one which was sold by OP number 1.
12. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.12,999/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its purchase till realization. The complainant shall return the old mobile set along with its accessories to the Ops at the time of getting the payment. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
March 1, 2021.
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Member President
