DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                   Complaint no. 441                                                                                       

                                                                 Instituted on:  05.09.2017                                                                                             

                                                                 Decided on:    22.01.2018

Mayank Gupta aged 19 years son of Shri Narinder Kumar resident of H. No.69, W. No.10-C, Shivpuri Mohalla, Dhuri Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.      

Versus

1.       TVS Electronics Limited through its M.D. C/o DHL , 4th Floor, Plot No.193-97 and  254-258, 137 and 248 and 249 Jigani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area , Banglore-562106.

2.       XIAOMI Logistics through Vinoth (  Authorized person) c/o DHL Supply Chain Pvt. Limited Plot No.193-97 and  254-258, 137 and 248 and 249 Jigani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area , Banglore-562106.

                                                  ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:       Shri Nem Kumar, Adv.

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES   :         Shri Sandip Kumar Goyal, Adv.

Quorum

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg,  Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ORDER:  

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Mayank Gupta, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he  placed  an online order  to purchase mobile phone model REDMI-3S  which was delivered at Dhuri  and payment  of Rs.8999/- was made .  After opening the parcel, he came to know that mobile was in damaged condition having scratches, damaged from left bottom, speaker or it not working properly and with opened seal for which online complaint was lodged with OP no.1 and on asking of OP no.1 the mobile phone in question was sent to OP no.2 being warehouse of OP no.1 for replacement but  no new mobile set was delivered to the complainant till today. Thus, alleging deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to replace the  mobile set with new one  having same/similar feature or refund of its price alongwith interest @18% per annum  from the date of its purchase till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account mental agony and harassment and  to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it has been stated that without prejudice the OP no.2 has offered to settle the matter with the complainant by providing a replacement of the product with new handset of same model. The OP no.2 thereafter requested the complainant to send  the original  product to the OP no.2's warehouse so that the replacement could be processed however  the complainant sent an empty box without  the original product clearly establishing malafide  intentions on the part of the  complainant to illegally extort money and harass the respondents. It has been further stated that if the complainant had sent the allegedly damaged product to the warehouse of the OP no.2, the OP no.2 would have duly replace the alleged product with a new handset. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.   

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed evidence. On the other hand,  Ops have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-3 and closed evidence.

4.             The purchase of the mobile set in question by the complainant on online is not disputed in the present case. The main point of controversy in the present case is that the damaged/defective  mobile set was not received by the OPs rather they received an empty box of mobile set, as so stated by the OPs in their reply.

5.             It is specific case of the complainant that as required by the OP no.1 he sent defective/ damaged mobile set to OP no.2 being  warehouse of OP no.1 for replacement with new mobile phone under registered parcel on 24.12.2016 through Dhuri post office by paying Rs.36/- as postage charges. The complainant has produced on record copy of postal receipt dated 24.12.2016 Ex.C-5.  From the perusal of it we find that  the weight of the parcel is mentioned as 500gms in it. So, we feel that it is matter of common knowledge that weight of empty box of mobile set in question could not be of 500 gms. The complainant has produced on record copy of email dated 23.12.2016 Ex.C-4  wherein OPs  told the complainant that mobile set in question be sent at his own cost to warehouse address so as to initiate the replacement. To further prove his case, the complainant  has produced on record other copies of emails dated 28.12.2016 and 29.12.2016 Ex.C-6. From the perusal said emails we find that OPs have admitted receipt of mobile set in question as they mentioned in the email that   " Mayank, as per our records, I see  that your issue is already escalated to our concerned department and they are working on this. Further, I have  gone ahead and reminded them to work on this on high priority. They will initiate the replacement as soon as possible. One the replacement  initiated, it will be delivered to you within 5-7 working days. Hence, I kindly request you to wait for some more time.".   Here again we find that the OPs  have not stated that they have received an empty box of the mobile set in question from the complainant.  But, surprisingly the OPs by filing the written statement dated 20.11.2017 to the present complaint have taken this plea that they have received an empty box of the mobile set in question after a gap of long period of eleven months which is not tenable by us because the OPs have not made any correspondence with the complainant regarding receiving of empty box of mobile set in question in these eleven months. The  OPs have not produced any cogent and reliable evidence which could prove their case regarding receiving of empty box of mobile set in question. So, it is proved that the complainant has sent the damaged/ defective mobile set in question to the OPs.  

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that the complainant has well proved his case. Accordingly we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to supply a new mobile set  of same model  and feature to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to  pay an amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.     A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

                Announced

                January 22, 2018

                       ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)   (Sarita Garg)       (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                          Member                          Member                         President