Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/156/2018

KULWANT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

XIAMOI - Opp.Party(s)

ARVIND KHAJURIA

24 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No.                   465/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :    23-02-2018

 Date of Decision      :     12-10-2018

 

Kulwant Singh,

S/O Sh.Dhani Ram,

R/O Aitham,Post Office,

Aitham,Tehsil and District,

Jammu.

                                                                                                                                          Complainant

               V/S

1. M/S Xiamoi  Tech.  India Pvt.Ltd.

    8^th Floor Tower-1 Umiya Business Bay,Marathashalli-Sarjapur,

  Outer Ring Road,Banglore-560103,,

2.Cell Shell,430,JMC Main Road High Court,  Janipur Jammu-180007.

3.PSV Solutuion Ist Floor Ext.7,Near Dogra Higher Secondary School

   Shastri Nagar,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                               Opposite parties

   CORAM:

                  Khalil Choudhary             (Distt.& Sessions Judge)      President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                               Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                                         Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer Protection Act 1987.

                             

Mr.Sanjay K Dhar,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for OP1 present.

Nemo for OP2 &3.

 

                                                 ORDER

 

                         Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that; complainant is said to have purchased one Redmi 4 2GB 16 GB  handset Batch-866248032508747 from OP2,on,04-10-2017, against sale consideration of Rs.8100/-however, handset alleged to have been marred by defects within warranty period and same was taken to OP3,repeatedly, but it failed to remove the defects, and same, according to complainant were manufacturing in nature, therefore, in the final analysis, for deficiency in service, complainant prays for either replacement of handset or refund of cost of handset  and in addition, prays for compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.30,000.

                  On the other hand,OP1 filed written version and while denying the allegation of complainant, went onto submit that there is no deficiency of service or un fair trade practice on its part. That the OP2 is a vendor and the OP3 is an authorized service centre of OP1.The complainant has purchased the phone sold under the Mi brand,namely,Redmi 2  for Rs,.8,100/ from OP2.It is submitted that complainant’s allegation regarding deficiency of service also lack any basis and are entirely untenable. It is submitted that complainant has not submitted any evidence such as a job sheet in connection with any alleged visits to the authorized service centre of OP1.Additionally,the complainant has not provided any evidence regarding manufacturing defects in the product. Rest of the contents of complaint are denied by OP1.

                                In so far as OP,2&3 are concerned, despite notice did not take any action to represent their  case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period, provided under the Act. Thereafter, the right of the OP,2&3 to file reply was closed, vide order dated, 02-05-2018.

                      Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit. Complainant has placed on record, copy of tax invoice.

                                      On the other hand,OP1 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Mr.Saneer BS Rao Authorised Representative of Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.Ltd.

                      We have perused case file and heard L/Cs appearing for the parties at length.

                    To be brief, allegation of complainant is that he purchased  handset manufactured by OP1,but within warranty period, handset was marred by defects,however,despite repeated requests,OPs failed to remove  the alleged defects. On the other hand,Op,2&3 despite service of notice, did not choose to defend themselves before the Forum,therefore,their right to file written version was closed.                  

                           In so far as, allegation of complainant regarding defects in the handset are concerned and failure of OP,2&3 to remove alleged defects, same went unchallenged from OP,2&3 side.

                 In support of his allegations, complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit which is verbatim reproduction of contents of complaint,therefore,need no reiteration. Complainant has also placed on record copy of tax invoice.            

               On the other hand, OP,2&3 despite being duly served, failed to take any action to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of the complainant or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by OP,2&3 in this complaint and there is also no evidence to rebut the case of the complainant. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 (2) (b) (ii)of the Consumer Protection Act,1987, which provides that in a case where the Op1 omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-Clause (ii) of the Section 11, of Act of 1987, clearly, provides that when OP,2&3 omits or fails to take any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                      From perusal of the documentary evidence and affidavits filed by complainant, it is found that complainant has succeeded in proving his case, against OPs despite making repeated requests, therefore, a case is made out by complainant for deficiency in service on the part of OPs,in not redressing his grievance.

                  Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded in proving deficiency in service on the part of OPs,2&3,as such,OPs 2&3 are directed to refund cost of handset to the tune of Rs.8100/to the complainant, who in turn returned the handset with all accessories to OP3. OPs 2&3 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-to the complainant. The awarded amount be deposited in this Forum within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Announced                                                 (Khalil Choudhary)                                        

 12-10-2018                                                (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

 Agreed by                                                      President                                                      

                                                                       (District Consumer Fourm)

Ms.Vijay Angral                                                 Jammu.

Member

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member