BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR.
Consumer Complaint No. : 01 of 13.01.2017
Date of decision : 12.06.2017
Sunaina, daughter Sushil Kumar, aged about 24 years, resident of # 62, Street No.10, Malohtra Colony, Ropar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.
......Complainant
Versus
1. TVS Electronics Limited- BLR-PC, C/o Proconnect Supply Chain Solution, Ltd. SY No.102/1, Acakamaranhall Village, Dasanzpura, Hobll Market, Post City, Bangalore, State Karnataka, Pin 562123, through M.D.
2. Blue Dart Courier Service, SCO-123, Near Markfed Office, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar
3. Xiaomi Exclusive- Chandigarh Shop No.SCO-2471-72, First Floor, 22 C, Chandigarh, Service Centre through its Proprietor.
4. Xiaomi India C/o Ikeva Business Centre, 8th Floor Umiya Business Bay Tower 1, Cessna Business Park, Kadubersanahalli, Marathahalli, Sarjapur outer, Ring Road, Bangalore-560103 through its M.D.
....Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Dheeraj Pasricha, Advocate, counsel for complainant
Sh. Gagandeep Arora, Advocate, counsel for O.P. No.3 Opposite Parties No.1 & 4 ex-parte
Name of the Opposite party No.2 stands deleted vide order dated 11.4.2017.
ORDER
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Mrs. Sunaina through his authorized representative has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-
i) To replace the mobile set with the new one or to refund the amount of Rs.6999/-
ii) To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him
iv) To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation
2. In brief the case of the complainant is that on 14.1.2016, he purchased a mobile phone MI Redmi2 from O.P. No.1 through online for Rs.6999/-, bearing IMEI No.8679350227389823. The said phone was manufactured by O.P. No.1 and he received the same through O.P. No.2. It got defective after two months of its purchase. It was having sensor, heating, speaker, sound and battery drainage problem. He on 10.6.2016, got it repaired from service centre situated at Chandigarh, i.e. O.P. No.3. But, it did not work properly even after its repair and he again took his mobile set to O.P. No.3 for its repair. Inspite of the fact that the said mobile was within warranty, the O.P. No.3 demanded money from him to repair the same. On 25.11.2016, a legal notice was served upon the O.Ps. through registered AD post, but the O.Ps. even after receipt of the legal notice neither repaired nor replaced the mobile set in question nor refunded the amount till date. Hence, this complaint.
3. On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.3 has filed the reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is false, frivolous, baseless and malafide; that the present complaint filed by the complainant is bereft of any merit; that the answering O.P. is not concerned with the replacement of the product or refund of money as O.P. No.3 is only a service centre and not the manufacturer/seller of the product; that the present complaint is misconceived, prima facie proves the malafide intentions of the complainant; that the complainant has made answering O.P. as party to the present complaint with the intention to gain illegal money; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. On merits, it is stated that the O.P. No.3 after receipt of the mobile set from the complainant has checked the same properly and after its repair returned it to him. It has to repair the mobile set as per terms and conditions of the warranty. It never demanded any money from the complainant, the allegations leveled by the complainant is false. It is not in domain of the O.P. No.3 either to replace the mobile set in question or to refund the amount. The complainant has filed the complaint against it just to grab the money from it. He never received any legal notice from the complainant. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.
4. On being put to notice, none appeared on behalf O.P. No.1 & 4, accordingly, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.02.2017. The name of the O.P. No.2 stands deleted vide order dated 11.04.2017.
5. On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Prabhakar Tiwari, Deputy Manager of Company/ Group of Company of HCL Ex.OP3/A along with annexure A1 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
7. From the invoice dated 14.1.2016, Ex.C7, it is evident that complainant purchased the mobile set in question for a sum of Rs.6999/- from the TVS Electronics Limited i.e. O.P. No.1 and same was delivered by O.P. No.2 to him. From the service job sheet dated 10.06.2016, Ex.C8, it is evident that complainant took his mobile set for its repair to O.P. No.3 for its repair. It is the positive case of the complainant that the said mobile hand set did not function properly, even after its repair and he again took it to the O.P. No.3 for its repair but the O.P. No.3 demanded money from him to repair the same, inspite of the fact that the said mobile got defective within warranty period. Whereas the stand of the O.P. No.3 is that it never demanded money from the complainant. Even if we believe the contention of the O.P. No.3 that it had not demanded any money from the complainant, even then this fact cannot be ignored that the O.P. No.3 being the service provider was duty bound to set the said mobile right either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s) free of cost, same being under warranty. It may be stated that these days having a mobile set is a basic necessity and due to non repair of the mobile set in question by the O.P. No.3, complainant has been deprived of its use, therefore, the O.P. No.3 is said to be deficient in providing services and is liable to compensate the complainant. As such, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case, where the cost of the said mobile set is refunded to the complainant along with compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. Since, the O.P. No.3 is the service centre of O.P. No.4, therefore, the O.P. No.4 being manufacturer is vicariously liable for the act and conduct of its service centre. Thus, we do not hesitate to hold that O.P. No.4 is also liable to compensate the complainant along with O.P. No.3, so far as the liability of O.P. No.1 is concerned. It may be stated that it being the seller has sold the mobile set in question to the complainant. Neither any specific allegation has been leveled against it by the complainant nor it has been proved. Thus, no liability can be fastened against it. Thus, the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against O.P. No.1 and allow the same against O.Ps. No.3& 4 and they are directed in the following manner:-
1. To refund a sum of Rs.6999/- i.e. the price of the mobile set in question.
2. To pay Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered him.
3. To pay Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation.
The O.Ps. No.3 & 4 are further directed to comply with the said order jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
9. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (NEENA SANDHU)
Dated:12.06.2017 PRESIDENT
(SHAVINDER KAUR)
MEMBER
