Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 242.

                                                          Instituted on     : 24.04.2017.

                                                          Decided on       : 20.09.2018.

Arjun s/o Sh. Samunder Singh Vill. Chamaria, Distt. Rohtak-124001. 

                                                          .......................Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. V.P. Communication, Old Gohana Stand, Rothak-124001, Ph.9354743443.
2. MI Care Rohtak Address:- Shri Hari computer Solutions, S.C.O. 189, Huda Complex, Rothak 124001, Ph. 01262-246700.
3. Xiaomi India c/o Keva Business Centre, 8^th Floor, Umiya Business, Bay Tower, Cessna Business Park, Kasubeesanahalli, Marathahalli, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bangalore-560103.

                                                          ……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Opposite party No.1 & 2 exparte.

                   Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.3.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.10999/- on 10.03.2017. That at the time of purchase of alleged mobile, the same was little bent from inside and he complained the same to the opposite party  and then the OP replied that the same was due to alleged model and the complainant believed the OP No.1 and had purchased the alleged mobile. That after keeping the mobile for two days, it bent more. So he requested the opposite party No.1 to replace the same but the opposite party No.1 refused for the same. That complainant also contacted the care centre and they also refused to pay any heed to his requests. That there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed either to replace the mobile set or to refund the price of same alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.06.2017 of this Forum. Ld. counsel for OP No.3 in its reply has submitted that complainant himself admits that he noticed a bent( if any) in the product at the time of the purchase. Since the complainant himself purchased the product irrespective of the alleged bent, he cannot claim any remedy whatsoever from the respondent No.3. Liability if any, in the present matter therefore lies with the respondent No.1 and respondent no.3 cannot be held liable for any deficiency of service.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and closed his evidence.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          Perusal of the documents reveals that the bent in the mobile set was itself noticed at the time of purchasing but the complainant purchased the same on the assurance of the seller that the bent was due to shape of model itself. But thereafter the same was more bent within two days which shows manufacturing defect in the mobile set. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 & 2 have not appeared before this Forum for the rebuttal against the pleadings of the complainant placed on the file and remained exparte in the present case. As such all the allegations leveled against the opposite parties regarding the alleged defect in the mobile phone stands proved.

6.                          Accordingly the complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of Rs.10999/-(Rupees ten thousand nine hundred ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.04.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses and compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.  However, complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile in question to the OPs/service centre at the time of payment by the OP No.3, if the same is in his possession.   

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

8.                          File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

20.09.2018.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.