Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/18/2018

Rajveer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Santosh Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Lalit Gupta

17 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 18 of 2018

                                                     Date of institution : 17.04.2018                                                       

                                                  Date of decision    : 17.07.2018

Rajveer Singh aged about 46 years S/o Late Sh. Inderjit Singh R/o Village Frozpur, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Santosh Telecom Gaushala Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its authorized signatory.
2. Pee Kay Sales corporation Shop No.2, Daharm Complex, Samadhi Road, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.
3. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.(Xiaomi India) 8^th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay, Marathahalli- Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India, Pin Code-560103.

 

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                            

Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh. Lalit Gupta, Adv.Cl. for complainant.

                      Opposite parties exparte.

ORDER

 

By Inder Jit, Member

                      Complainant, Rajveer Singh aged about 46 years S/o Late Sh. Inderjit Singh R/o Village Frozpur, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant purchased a Redmi Y1 mobile handset for his son from OP No.1, vide Invoice No.231 dated 12.01.2018 for Rs.11,600/-. At the time of purchase of mobile phone in question OP No.1 gave warranty/guarantee of one year against any defect in the said mobile hand set in question and also assured the complainant orally that the handset in question is of excellent quality and he would return the amount of the said mobile handset along with interest if the mobile phone in question found to be defective later on. After few weeks from the date of purchase, the said mobile handset started giving some problems i.e. hanging problem, browser downloading problem due to which the son of complainant faced so much difficulty in using the same. The complainant approached OP No.1 and told about the defects in the mobile handset. OP No.1 suggested the complainant to approach OP No.2.  Thereafter, the complainant along with his son approached OP No.2 on 24.02.2018 and told them about the said defects in the mobile hand set and requested to remove the same.  OP No.2 retained the mobile hand set with it for its repair and issued a job sheet dated 24.02.2018. After few hours, OP No.2 handed over the mobile hand set to the complainant with the assurance that they have removed the defects from the hand set and also assured that it will not create any problem in future.  But after few days from the date of repair of the mobile hand set, it again started giving problems.  Complainant again approached OP No.2 on 17.03.2018 and told about the problems faced in using the mobile hand set. OP No.2 again retained the mobile hand set by asking that it will take some days to remove the defects but they did not issue any job sheet at that time.  After few visits by the complainant to the office of OP No.2, they handed over the mobile hand set to the complainant on 21.03.2018 and further assured the complainant that in future the mobile hand set will perform smoothly and the complainant will face no problem.  But after few days the mobile hand set again started giving problem and complainant again visited OP No.2 and requested them either to remove the defects permanently or to replace the mobile hand set with new one. But OP No.2 totally refused to do so. Thereafter the complainant approached OP No.1 and told him about whole of his sufferings and requested him either to replace the mobile in question with new one or to refund the amount. But OP No.1 also refused to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to replace the mobile hand set with new one or to refund the cost of the mobile in question and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for un-necessary harassment, mental agony and monetary loss suffered by the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs but OPs chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OPs were proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence true copy of bill dated 12.01.2018 Ex. C-1, true copy of job sheet Ex. C-2, his affidavit Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the mobile handset in question was purchased on 12.01.2018 which became problematic on 24.02.2018 i.e. just after one month and a half. OP No.2, the service centre of the manufacturing company, when approached, rectified the defects in the mobile handset twice but of no use, that is to say that the mobile handset in question could never be rectified properly by OP No.2. He further argued that when approached OP No.2 third time, it totally refused to do anything with the mobile handset saying that they have tried their best to rectify the said mobile, but failed. They showed their inability to rectify the said mobile adding that the mobile handset seems to be having some manufacturing defect in it. Ld. counsel pleaded for ordering replacement of the said mobile handset with a new one beside awarding adequate compensation and litigation charges.
6. We have gone through the written arguments, evidence produced and oral arguments etc. We are of the opinion that OPs have committed deficiency in service and hence we accept this complaint. OP No.2 is directed to examine the mobile handset in question thoroughly. If it can be repaired properly and permanently, the same may be done to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. If any defective part is to be replaced, replace it free of cost- mobile being in the warranty period. On the other hand, if repair is not possible and the mobile handset has some manufacturing defect, then get it replaced with a new one from OP No.3 or arrange refund of its price. Let this order be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.  The complainant is also held entitled to compensation together with litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 2000/-.
7. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 11.07.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:17.07.2018

(A.P.S.Rajput)           

    President

 

(Inder Jit)         

    Member