Haryana

StateCommission

A/640/2017

RAJINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE XOLO CARE CENTRE - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.VERMA

27 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    640 of 2017

Date of Institution:  25.05.2017

Date of Decision:    27.07.2017

 

Rajender Singh son of Sh. Har Lal, aged about 43 years, resident of Village and Post Office Mundhal Khurd, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      The XOLO Care Centre, Halwasiya Mall, Bhiwani, through its Manager.

 

2.      Jeenu Gift Shop, 52, Adarsh Market, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani through its Proprietor.

 

3.      XOLO Mobiles India Limited, A-56, Sector 64, Noida-201304, U.P, through its Inchage.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.                 

      

 

Present:     Shri K.L. Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

                    

 

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated March 10^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint was partly allowed. For facilitation, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:

“……Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.8,000/- to the complainant against the mobile handset of the complainant.  The complainant is directed to deposit his mobile handset with accessories with the opposite parties within 15 days from the date of passing of this order and the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.8,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the deposit of the mobile handset etc in question with them.”

 

2.      On September 20^th, 2014, Rajender Singh-complainant purchased a mobile handset of Xolo make from Jeenu Gift Shop, Bhiwani for Rs.10,400/-. The complainant noticed some defects in the mobile hand set. He approached The Xolo Care Centre, Bhiwani (authorized service centre)-opposite party No.1 but to no avail. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The opposite parties No.1 & 3, in their, written version pleaded that the complainant approached authorized service centre on June 12^th, 2015, that is, after about nine months of purchase of the mobile handset.   The defects in the mobile handset were removed.  There was no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset.   

4.      The complainant purchased the mobile hand set from the opposite party No.2 on September 20^th, 2014. The mobile hand set suffered defects after about nine months of its purchase. Meaning thereby, the complainant used the mobile hand set for about nine months. The opposite parties failed to rectify the defects in the mobile hand set. In this view of the matter, the District Forum has rightly directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.8,000/- keeping in view the depreciation of the value of the mobile handset.

5.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is dismissed.

  

Announced 27.07.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 U.K