Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/885/2017

Mr. Monu Chauhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS Electronics Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Arjun Kumar Shukla Adv.

01 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	885/2017
Date of Institution	:	15.11.2017
Date of Decision	:	01/06/2018

 

                                       

                                               

Mr.Monu Chauhan s/oSh.Kanwar Singh Chauhan r/o H.No.15-A, NHPC Colony, Sector 42-A, UT, Chandigarh.

                        ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     TVS Electronics Ltd., C/o DHL thrugh its Manager/Prop/Director, SCO 60, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

2.     One Assist Consumer Solutions through its Manager/Partner/Director, Pvt. Ltd., 707-708-709, ACME, Plaza Andheri Kurla road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059.

        Second Address:

One Assist Consumer Solutions through its Manager/Partner/Director, Private Ltd., B-24, Manubharti Azad, Lane, Off S V Road, Andheri, West Mumbai-400058.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI S.K.SARDANA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Arjun Kumar Shukla, Adv. for the complainant

                 OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a Redmi Note 4 Black 3G+32G mobile handset on online from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 08.04.2017 for Rs.10999/-, having warranty of one year. He also paid an additional amount of Rs.499/- towards its insurance/protection.    Since there was a crack on the display of the mobile phone, therefore, he approached the OP No.1 who asked him to approach OP No.2 for its repair/replacement. Accordingly, the complainant filled the claim form online but later on OP No.2 sent an e-mail stating therein that he was not entitled for the claim being underage. According to the complainant, he had attained the age of majority in the month of January, 2017 whereas the mobile phone in question was purchased in the month of April, 2017. According to the complainant, at the time of purchase of the mobile phone, he had submitted his PAN Card which was also mentioned in the invoice itself. It has been averred that he approached OP No.2 number of times to repair/replace the mobile phone but to no effect. 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.         Despite due service through registered post, the OPs failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
3.         During the pendency of the case, counsel for the OP No.2 filed the written arguments stating therein that they did not receive any notice about the crack in the mobile handset and about its non-working and for what reason it was cracked that is too without any day, month and year.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant was minor at the time of purchase of the handset in question Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         After going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted for the reasons stated hereinafter. Admittedly, the mobile phone purchased vide invoice 08.04.2017 was covered under the Mi Protection plan. The display of the mobile phone cracked after few days of its purchase.  A perusal of the e-mail dated 19.04.2017 shows that the claim regarding the damage of the mobile phone was registered vide service request number 1924078 with OP No.2. It is revealed from the e-mail dated 21.04.2017 that OP No.2 had closed the claim on the ground that the complainant was underage (his birth year is 1999). The complainant has placed on record a photocopy of his passport and the driving licence in which his date of birth was mentioned as 25.01.1999 meaning thereby that he had attained the age of majority at the time of purchase of the mobile phone in question and as such the rejection of the claim on the ground aforesaid is unjustified and illegal.  It was the duty of OP No.2 to get the mobile phone functional by replacing the defective parts if any under the protection plan/policy and in case, the same is not repairable then it should have indemnify the complainant to the extent of the actual loss suffered by him.  OP No.2 is, thus, proved itself to be deficient in rendering the promised services to the complainant.
6.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. OP No.2 is directed as under ;-

1. To get the mobile phone in question functional by replacing the defective parts, if any, free of cost forthwith.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.4,000/- as litigation expenses.

7.         This order be complied with by OP No.2, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall be liable to refund the price of the mobile phone in question as well as Rs.3,000/- towards compensation aforesaid to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment besides litigation expenses.
8.         The complaint qua OP No.1 stands dismissed.
9.         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]	(S.K.SARDANA)
01/06/2018		PRESIDENT	MEMBER