Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/957/2016

Murti Dev - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS Electronics Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Verma

08 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/957/2016
Date of Institution	:	18/10/2016
Date of Decision	:	08/02/2018

 

 

Murti Dev s/o Ram Kesh Patel r/o H.No.1345/4, Morigate, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     TVS Electronics Ltd. – BLR-PC, c/o ProConnect Supply Chain Solutions Ltd., SY No.102/1, Adakamaranhalli village, Dasanapura Hobli, Makali Post, Bangalore, Karnataka, Pin 562123 through its Manager.

2.     Xiaomi Service Centre, SCO 2471-2472 (First Floor), Sec.22-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

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

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI RAVINDER SINGH	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vinod Verma, Counsel for complainant.
	:	Sh. Vipul Sharma, Counsel for OPs 1 & 3.
	:	None for OP-2

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant placed an order of Redmi 2 Prime mobile phone with OP-1 on 10.1.2016 through Flipkart.com @ Rs.6,999/- which was paid on delivery. As per the complainant, the mobile phone after about 2 months started having problems and on 10.5.2016, it stopped working. The mobile phone was given to OP-2 on 18.5.2016 which took almost one month but still could not get the same in order.  Since the complainant used to perform outstation duties, therefore, he handed over the responsibility of getting the mobile changed to his cousin brother Sh. Vikas Patel.  OP-2 responded to Sh. Vikas Patel over email by offering a new model handset replacement and requested him to acknowledge as confirmation for proceeding further, which was done by him.  However, OP-2 failed to deliver the handset despite exchange of emails.   Finally, on receipt of the last email, when Sh. Vikas Patel, approached OP-2 to get the new model of the mobile phone, he was offered an old mobile phone with broken screen and it demanded Rs.2000/- for the same purpose. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs 1 & 3 in their written reply have not disputed the factual matrix. It has been averred that owing to delay in repair of the product, OP-3 offered a replacement handset of the same model to the complainant, but, he refused which clearly establishes malafides on his part to unnecessarily harass the OPs.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs 1 & 3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OP-2 in its separate written statement has averred that the reported problem/fault was conveyed to the complainant/representative, Sh. Vikas Patel and it was also informed that it could take 15-30 days to get the handset repaired.  It has been stated that OP-2 is not concerned with any kind of replacement or refund of the handset as it is only a service centre and not the manufacturing company and all requests pertaining to the replacement of the handset were also made to the manufacturing company. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-2 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OPs.
5.         Since OP-1 failed to file evidence, therefore, its defence was struck off vide order dated 13.12.2017.  The remaining parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsels for the complainant and OPs 1 & 3.
7.         It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant purchased one Redmi 2 Prime mobile handset for Rs.6,999/- on 10.1.2016 from OPs. Annexure C-3 is the job sheet dated 18.5.2016 over which the expected return date is mentioned as 2.6.2016.  However, till date, neither the handset in question has been repaired nor replaced as per the terms and conditions of the OPs.  Annexure C-2 is the admission of the service centre (OP-2) of OP-3 that the repair is pending with it and, as a goodwill gesture, they are offering replacement after getting confirmation from the complainant. 
8.         The stand taken by OP-2, the service centre is that it has no concern with any kind of replacement or refund and if the replacement is to be made, that has to be done by the manufacturer company only.
9.         On the other hand, OPs 1 & 3 have admitted that the replacement of the same model was offered to the complainant, but, he himself refused to accept the same.   Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
10.         A perusal of Annexure C-3, the job sheet, reveals that the repair of the handset is pending since 18.5.2016, but, till date, the OPs could not give any solution to the grievance of the complainant.  Rather the complainant, after purchasing the handset, has to run after the OPs for the replacement of the same despite there being no fault on his part. However, till date, nothing fruitful has come.  Even during the proceedings of the present case, no such offer was made.  Hence, the act of the OPs in keeping the defective mobile set of the complainant in their possession for such a long time, without repairing or replacing the same, and non-providing proper services to the complainant, proves deficiency in service on their part which certainly caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
11.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the invoice value of the mobile handset i.e. 6,999/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.4,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.

12.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
08/02/2018	[Ravinder Singh]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member