Punjab

Sangrur

CC/599/2017

Deepak - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS Electronics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kuldeep Kumar Jain

26 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    599

                                                Instituted on:      10.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       26.04.2018

 

 

Deepak aged about 21 years son of K.P. Jindia, resident of Jindia Niwas, Jind Road, Sangrur, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             TVS Electronics Ltd. South Phase 7-A, Second Floor, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600032 through its Proprietor.

2.             Xiomi (MI) Had Office, XIOMI Technology India Pvt. Ltd. 8^th Floor, Tower-I, Umiya Business Bay, Marathahalli-Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka India Pin 560103.

3.             Gaurav Technologies, Opposite Old Law Foundation School, Near Madanjit Di Kothi, Sangrur now at Street No.10, Prem Basti, Opposite D.C. Residence, Sangrur through its Proprietor Gaurav Kumar.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Kuldeep Jain, Adv.

For OP No.2              :               Shri Sandeep Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.1&3         :               Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:    Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

                       

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

 

1.               Shri Deepak, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one mobile set Redmi Note-4 bearing IMEI number 863194034766565 from the OP number 1 vide invoice dated 09.03.2017. Further case of the complainant is that the mobile set in question was having a warranty/guarantee of one year against any defects arises therein.  Further case of the complainant is that from the very beginning the mobile in question is suffering from the problems such as heating, software, hangover etc, as such, the complainant visited OP number 3, who issued a job sheet dated 24.10.2017 and further observed that the main board of the said mobile requires to be changed which was changed.  But the grievance of the complainant is that thereafter it also did not work properly and the same problems again existed in the mobile set, as such, the complainant lodged complaints on the toll free number of the OP number 2, but all in vain.    Thus, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the mobile set in question with a new one or in the alternative to refund the purchase price of the mobile set in question and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.               In reply filed by OP number 2, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP for Rs.10,999/- which was having one year standard warranty. Further it is admitted that the complainant on 24.10.2017, approached the OP number 2 and on checking it was found that the mobile set in question was facing issue relating to other apps faults and overheating of the product and as such the product was duly repaired and the product was handed over to the complainant.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question, but the complaint is said to be false, frivolous and vexatious in nature.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.               Record shows that the OPs number 1 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such OPs number 1 and 3 were proceeded exparte.

 

4.               The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 copies of documents as well as affidavit and emails and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.               We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.                 Ex.C-1 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.10,999/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question and availed the services of the OP number 1, which has been manufactured by OP number 2, whereas OP number 3 is the service centre of OP number 2.

 

7.               In the present case, the complainant has alleged that during the warranty period in the month of October, 2017 the mobile set in question suffered the problems of heating up, hanging as well as of software, as such, he approached OP number 2 for setting right the problem in the mobile set and the OP number 2 told the complainant that there is software problem and as such the OP number 2 updated the software and replaced the main board part, which problem again arose in the mobile set thereafter, as such he again approached the OP number 2, but the OP number 2 did not set right the mobile set in question. Further to show that the mobile set in question is defective one, the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-2 the expert report of Pankaj Jindia, which clearly says that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question and this report is also supported by his affidavit Ex.C-3.  On the other hand,  the OPs have produced nothing on the record to show that the mobile set in question is in working order or it has no problem therein, whereas the complainant has produced on record a copy of service record, C-6.    As such, we are of the considered opinion that the mobile set in question became defective during the warranty period, which was even not repaired by the Ops despite repeatedly visiting of the complainant to the OP number 2.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the same was not repaired nor the Ops showed any interest during the present proceedings to get the same repaired at their own. As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.

 

8.               In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with a new one. The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and  litigation expenses.

 

9.               This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 26, 2018.

                                               

 

                                       

                                                     (Sarita Garg)

                                                Presiding  Member

 

 

 

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                         Member