Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/124/2021

Abhinandan Bajaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sant Rameshwari Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Goyal adv

02 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	124/2021
Date of Institution	:	22.02.2021
Date of Decision	:	02.07.2024

 

                                       

                       

 

Abhinandan Bajaj aged about 34 Years s/o Sh. Om Parkash R/o A-155, Paradise Apartments Sector 127, Shivalik City, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Punjab.

…Complainant

Versus

 

1.     Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, SCO-26, 1st Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh- 160020 through its Authorized Representative.

2.     Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, AKR Infinity, Sy. No. 113, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, 7th Mile, Hosur Road, Banglore-560068, Karnataka through its Director.

3.     Rising Stars Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., 380, Belerica Road, Sri City, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh-517646 through its Director.

4.     Savadika Retail Pvt. Ltd., Unit 406 B2 & 406 C, 4th Floor, Centrum Plaza Golf Course Road, Sector-53 Gurgaon, HR 122001.

…. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
PRESENT:-
	Sh.Deepak Goyal, Counsel for complainant Sh.Atul Goyal, Counsel for OP No.2 OPs No.1,3 & 4 exparte.

       

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.         The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading therein that he purchased a mobile phone make POCO X3  (manufactured by OPs No.2 and 3)  vide Invoice dated 05/06.10.2020 through the website of OP No.4 having warranty of one year.  The mobile phone was having many problems i.e. hanging on blue color on pulling the shutter, screen flashing red colour randomly after regular use of sometime, hanging and needs to restart frequently, battery discharging quickly. He also approached the Customer Care of the OPs and updated the mobile phone as instructed by them but to no effect.  On 04.01.2021, the complainant handed over the mobile phone to OP No.1 i.e. Service Center who flashed/repaired the same and delivered with an assurance that the same will not give any problem in future.  It has further been averred that the mobile phone is still giving the same problems. On 07.01.2021, OP No.1 after checking the mobile phone admitted that the same is having several problems.  It has been alleged that the mobile phone is having manufacturing defect. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 22.01.2021 requiring the OPs to refund the price of the mobile phone but the same has also failed to yield any result. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to refund the price of the mobile phone along with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.         In its written version, OP No.2 while admitting the factual matrix regarding purchase of the mobile phone by the complainant has pleaded that after examining and reviewing the product at the service center, it was found that there was no defect/fault in the product and the same was functioning in a proper manner. However, on the request of the complainant, the software was updated vide job sheet dated 04.01.2021. On 07.01.2021, the complainant again approached the Service Center and on inspection, no defect/fault was found in the product and the same was returned as the same was working in proper manner.  It has been pleaded that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The complainant filed replication to the written reply of OP No.2 and controverted its stand and reiterating his own.
4.         Despite due service, OPs No.1, 3 & 4 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.11.2021.
5.         Parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
6.         We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written submissions.
7.         From the documents on record, it is observed that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone make POCO X3 in question from OP No.4 for a sum of Rs.18,499/- vide invoice dated 05/10.2020 (Annexure C-2) having one year warranty. It is further observed from the documents annexed with the complaint that the said mobile phone started giving problems within the warranty period and the OPs have tried to repair the same twice but they failed to rectify the defects as the mobile phone is still not functioning properly. Since the complainant has lost faith in the product of the OPs and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by directing them to repair the mobile phone in question.  Hence, the complainant is held entitled to refund of its price along with interest.
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed to  refund Rs.18,499/- i.e. price of the mobile phone to the complainant.  The OPs are at liberty to collect the mobile phone along with its accessories from the complainant after payment of the awarded amount to him.
9.           This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally, within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
10.         The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
11.         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 02.07.2024
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER