DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. - 1019/2014
Date of Institution - 11/11/2014
Order Reserved on 16/09/2016
Date of Order - 19/09/2016
In matter of
Mr. Kapil Gupta, adult
R/o-1/1192, Gali no. 11
Subhash Park, Shahdara, Delhi 110032..………..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-M/s The Service City
Autho service centre
Shop no.- 201, IInd Floor, Sagar Plaza
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
2-Digitek Computers Pvt Ltd,
C-6/232, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053
3-Lava International Ltd,
A-56, Sec. 64, Noida, UP, 201301………………….………………Opponents
Complainant’s Advocate-Bhudutt Sharma
Opponent 1-Ex Parte
Opponent 2-Ex Parte
Opponent 3 Advocate-Manish Bhatnagar
Quorum - Sh Sukhdev Singh- President
Dr P N Tiwari - Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant purchased a Xolo Q 900 mobile phone vide IMEI 9113313300020135 on dated 10/02/2014 for a sum of Rs 10,600/- from OP2 vide ExCW1/A invoice no. 129405. The said mobile phone was insured from OP1 vide Ex CW1/B as Mobile protection plan. The tenure of insurance was from 10/02/2014 to 09/02/2015 after paying premium amount Rs 1000/-.
After some time, said mobile phone developed camera problem, so complainant took his mobile to authorized service centre at OP1, but did not get satisfactory result, so he went to OP3/Xylo care on dated 30/06/2014, who assured for replacement if problem was not rectified and a job card was prepared vide Ex CW 1/ D&E as the said mobile was under warranty. As per complainant, only assurance was given and neither replacement was done for his phone nor refund given. He also served a legal notice on dated 28/08/2014. When he did not get any reply, filed this complaint claiming replacement of defective mobile to new one with compensation of Rs 50,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony. He also claimed some litigation cost.
After scrutinizing complaint, notices were served. Except OP3, non OPs put up their appearance nor filed their written statement or evidences in their defense despite of giving lot of opportunities. Hence, OP1 and 2 were preceded Ex Parte. OP3 submitted its written statement and evidence on affidavit.
OP3 submitted its written statement under the name of “XOLO International Ltd and accepted that complainant had purchased the said mobile from OP 2 but
reiterated for any deficiency in services from OP1. OP3 also accepted that they were under the warranty contract to provide free services and even replace the defective product, if any problem occurs in one year of warranty tenure. OP3 asserted their services were of good quality to its customers. OP3 denied all the facts and allegation of deficiency alleged by complainant and prayed for dismissal of this complaint. Both the parties filed their evidences on affidavit.
Arguments were heard and order was reserved.
We have gone through all the facts and evidences filed before us. The very first fact was noticed that OP3 as Lava international Ltd was wrongly listed as OP3 by complainant, but OP3/Xylo submitted its written statement and evidences. OP2 was a seller of said mobile and OP1 was an authorized service centre of OP3. OP 1 and 2 did not submit their statement or evidence despite of notices served, this clearly showed the intentional disobey of legal process. So, they were preceded Ex Parte. Even up to the day of arguments, they (OP1 & 2) did not put up their appearance nor did arguments. The complainant made two service centers as OP1 and OP3 but did not make manufacturer of said mobile as a necessary party. OP2 was a seller and had no liability in the said product. If a product had some manufacturing defect, the company who makes the product were responsible for refund or replacement. In absence of making manufacturer as a necessary party, we cannot put liability on manufacturer, but OP1 and OP3 were an authorized service provider and OP1 had issued insurance for one year and received insurance premium also. As phone developed camera problem during its warranty
tenure, so, liability of service providers were jointly and severely.
We allow this complaint and pass the following order as -
OP1 and OP3 will provide proper services to complainant for one year to the complainant as and when required. As the said mobile was with OP1, hence OP1 will remove the camera defects within 30 days and will hand over the said mobile in good working condition. OP1 will also extend the one year warranty from the date of handing over the said mobile to complainant. We also award compensation of a sum of Rs 5000/- to complainant which shall be paid within 30 days jointly by OP1 and 3. This award shall include litigation charge. If OPs fails to comply this order in time essence, then OPs shall be liable to pay the cost of mobile a sum of Rs 10,600/- with insurance amount Rs 1000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.
Mrs -Harpreet Kaur- Member (Dr) P N Tiwari -Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh - President
