BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint no.105/2016.
Date of instt. 04.04.2016.
Date of Decision: 04.05.2017.
Pawan Kumar son of Subhash Chander resident of Ramgar Hospital Majra Road, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
..Complainant.
Versus
1.W.S. Retail Services Private Limited Shop No.42/1 & 43 Kacherakana Halli village JADIGENAHALLI Hobli NOSKOTE Taluk Banglore Karnatka India 560067.
2.We Care Repairing Works (Redmee Care) Shop NO.4; Red Cross Market near Old Over Bridge Hisar Haryana.
3.Beetal Teletech Limited Ist Floor Plott No.16 Udhyog Vihar Phase 11 Gurgaon 122015.
4.XIAOMI Technology India PVT Ltd. Office at 5th Floor, Block Delta, B Block Embassy Tech Square, Inside Cessna Business Park, Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Kadubeesanahali, Varthur Hobli, Banglore 560103.
..Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Before Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.
Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member. Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Present: Sh.P.K.Arora, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for OP No.1.
Sh.Zile Singh, Advocate for OP no.3.
Opposite party no.2 exparte. Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate for OP No.4.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties with the averments that on 25.05.2015 he had purchased a mobile Mi4i bearing IMEI No.866376020580665 for a consideration of Rs.13,000/- from opposite party No.1. At the time of purchase of said mobile, OP No.1 had given one year full warranty of the same but after some time of its purchase it developed problems qua networking, hanging and less battery backup. Upon this, complainant visited OP No.2-service centre who deposited the mobile with it after issuance of job sheet No.JS/16030100978 dated 18.02.2016. Thereafter, service centre handed over the mobile to him after one month but despite that the mobile did not work properly, therefore, the complainant is entitled either for replacement of the mobile in question or for refund of the price of the same besides Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.
3. On presentation of the complaint, notice of the same was issued to the opposite parties.
4. Opposite party No.1 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing reply wherein it has been submitted that it is a registered seller on the website www.flipkart.com and sells products of other manufactures, traders etc. It has been further submitted that the product in question carrying manufacturer’s warranty as provided by the manufacturer. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 because the liability for defect in the product or after sales services rests with the manufacturer and its authorized service centre to remove the defects, if any to the entire satisfaction of the customer and for any subsequent defect the OP No.1 cannot be held liable. It has been further submitted that the complainant had used the mobile phone for nearly 9 months upto his satisfaction until visiting of service centre. Objections about concealment of material facts from this Forum and maintainability of the complaint have also been taken. With these submissions, prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
5. Opposite party no.3 in its reply resisted the complaint taking preliminary objections that complainant has no cause of action; complaint is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and that complaint is not maintainable. It has been further submitted that the OP No.3 is not the manufacturer of the said mobile and it is only importer of the product in question. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3 and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made.
6. OP No.4 in its reply has submitted that OP No.1 is vendor of products sold by the OP No.4 through India; that OP No.2 is authorized service centre of OP No.4; that OP No.3 is importer of products of OP No.4. All the products of OP No.4 are being sold under a standard set of warranty terms and said warranty terms are specific and limited. It has been further submitted that on 18.02.2016 the complainant had approached the service centre and on examination, the service engineer had noticed battery draining problem in the unit and that problem was properly removed and repaired by the technicians without charging anything from the complainant. It has been further submitted that the product was deliver in proper working condition but thereafter the complainant again approached the OP No.4 qua persisting of defects in the product, therefore, he was advised to submit the product for necessary technical examination so that repair/replacement could be carried out, if necessary, as per the warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product but despite that the complainant insisted either to replace the set or to refund the cost of the product and did not submit the set for necessary technical examination. Other pleas made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
7. The OP No.2 i.e. service centre did not appear despite issuance of notice through registered cover and was proceeded against exparte.
8. The complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW/1 and documents as Annexure C1 and C2. On the other hand, appearing OPs have tendered affidavit as Annexure R1 and document Annexure R2.
9. We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for the appearing opposite parties and have perused the case file carefully.
10. There is no dispute that complainant had purchased the mobile Mi4i for a sum of Rs.13,000/- (Annexure C1). The OP no.4 is manufacturer of the mobile in question and OP no.3 is customer care centre. The complainant in support of his averments has tendered his affidavit Annexure CW/1 wherein he has testified all the facts so set out by him in his complaint. According to the complainant, the mobile in question was having warranty of one year, however, after sometime of its purchase, some problem qua draining of battery etc. occurred in the mobile set. The complainant has also placed on file copy of job sheet dated 18.02.2016 as Annexure C2. The said job sheet dated 18.02.2016 reveals that there was battery backup and hanging problem in the mobile and it happened during within warranty period of one year. During the proceedings of this case the complainant had produced copy of letter/email written by OP no.3 to the complainant wherein it has been mentioned that Please provide the name of the person in whose favour the payment needs to be made in the respect of this complaint so that a demand draft can be made in favour of the concerned person. Also, kindly return the defective mobile set. The complaint against OP Nos.1,2 & 4 stands dismissed.
12. Thus, as sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against the OP no.3 with a direction to refund the price of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.13000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order subject to returning of mobile hand set along-with its accessories by the complainant. We also direct the OP No.3 to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- in lump sum to the complainant for harassment and mental agony etc. This order should be complied within a period of one month, failing which the above said amount of Rs.13000/- will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate legal action against the OP No.3. File be consigned to the record after due compliance. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of costs.
Announced in open Forum:
Dt.04.05.2017. (Raghbir Singh)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
( R.S.Panghal) (Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member Member
