Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/132/2017

Ajay - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS Electronics Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	132/2017
Date of Institution	:	06.02.2017
Date of Decision	:	07/02/2018

 

                                                

                                                         

Ajay son of Sh.Sharaj r/o H.No.597, Small Flats, Dhanas, UT, Chandigarh.

                             ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.       TVS Electronics Ltd., C/o DHL, 4^th Floor, Plot No.193-197 & 252-258, 137 & 248-249, Jigani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bangalore-562106.

2.       HCL Services Ltd., SCO No.2471-72, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh (Service Center).

3.       Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Block Delta, B-Block, Embassy Tech Squre, Inside Cessna Business Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Kudubeesanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore-560103.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:      SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Complainant in person.

                   Sh.Vipul Sharma, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 3.

                   Sh.J.S.Thind, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated, the complainant bought a Samrtphone make MI Redmi 3S from OP No.1  vide invoice dated 02.12.2016 for Rs.6999/- through online order.  After few days, the mobile phone started giving problems of hanging, voice disturbance etc.  and on his complaint, OP No.2-Authorized Service Center of OP No.3 repaired the mobile phone by replacing the motherboard on 04.01.2017.   It has further been averred that he again approached OP No.2 with the same issue on 28.01.2017, 01.02.2017 and 02.02.2017 and they repaired the mobile phone by up-gradation of the software.  According to the complainant, the OPs never intended to the repair the mobile phone properly and they again and again harassed him. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           In its written statement, OP No.2 pleaded that it has always been considerate and helpful to the customers. It has further been pleaded that as and when the complainant approached them, they provided one step service to the complainant and resolved the issue by updating the software there and then and the complainant was suggested to clear the junk data from his mobile as its memory was full. The complainant was handed over the mobile handset after satisfying him and whereupon after getting the said product checked and after satisfaction only, the complainant left the service center.  It has further been pleaded that there was no such issues reported in the handset still OP No.2 updated the handset every time.  Moreover, OP No.2 is not concerned with any replacement or refund of money  as they are only a service center and not the manufacturer of the handset. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           In its separate written statement, OP No.1 & 3 have admitted that the complainant had purchased the phone in question. However, it has been pleaded that on 04.01.2017, the complainant approached OP no.2 and on examination, it was ascertained that the product was having auto power off related issue and the said issue was duly and properly repaired by the technician of OP No.2 and the product was delivered to the complainant.  It has further been pleaded that on 28.01.2017, the complainant again approached OP no.2 with the issues related to video application and receiver noise in non-calling state and the issues were duly and properly repaired by the technician of OP No.2 and the product was delivered to the complainant.  It has further been pleaded that on 01.02.2017 and 02.02.2017, the complainant again approached OP No.2 with the issue related to gallery application and the issue was duly and properly repaired by the technician of OP No.2 and the product was delivered to the complainant.   It has further been pleaded that in February, 2017, the complainant again approached OP no.3 alleging that the defects are still persisting in the product and he was advised to visit the authorized service center of OP No.3 so that the product could be examined for defects and the necessary repair/replacement could be carried out, if necessary as per the terms and conditions of the Policy. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OP No.2 controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
5.           We have heard the arguments advanced by the parties and gone through the documentary evidence on record.
6.           Admittedly, the complainant purchased the mobile phone in question after paying the consideration of Rs.6999/- on 02.12.2016, having warranty of one year.
7.           Reply of the OPs itself reveals that the complainant approached OP No.2 time and again with various problems in the mobile phone within a short span of its purchase.  The mobile phone  in question is still giving the same kind of problems to the complainant despite carrying out the repairs by the authorized service center of OP No.3 which itself sufficient to conclude that the faults reported could not be rectified properly despite a number of services, that too within the warranty period .
8.           The mobile phone purchased by the complainant developed snags within a short span of its purchase. This discloses that the very purpose of the purchase of the mobile phone got defeated. In such scenario, the complainant cannot be forced to face constant struggle to get the same rectified time & again.
9.           Earlier also, it has been observed by this Forum that the electronic gadgets etc. are purchased in order to save the time and not to spend the precious time again & again on getting the gadgets repaired.  It is the prime duty of the manufacturers as well as the Service Centers to ensure the smooth and trouble free functioning of the gadget giving value for money to the buyer. As the Manufacturer and Service Centre have failed on this account, so it is held that they are liable to make the refund of the amount spent by the complainant on the purchase of the faulty mobile phone in question.   
10.           In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed against the OPs. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against them.  The OPs are jointly & severally directed as under:-

1. To refund an amount of Rs.6,999/- being the invoice price of the mobile phone in question, to the complainant,
2. To pay an amount of Rs.3,500/- to the complainant as compensation for causing her mental & physical harassment for deficiency in service;
3. To pay litigation expenses of Rs.2,500/-

11.           This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on amount as mentioned at sub-para (a) & (b) above from the date of this order till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.
12.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Sd/-                                 sd/-

Announced		[RAJAN DEWAN]	(PRITI MALHOTRA)
07/02/2018		PRESIDENT	MEMBER