Order-6.
Date-15/11/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant in short is that he purchased a mobile phone being Model No. REDMI NOTE Prime 16G White (IMEI-867793028308429) on 27/01/2016 from MI Online Store. The total cost of the set is of Rs.8499/- and at the time of purchase one year warranty was shown in the Website. The subject mobile set developed some defects on 09/06/2016 like not charging, application problem and restart problem. On self same date i.e. on 09/06/2016 the complainant took the set to the O.P. for necessary repairing. O.P. received the set and issued service jot sheet with expected return date on 22/06/2016. Complainant submits that O.P. received the set within warranty period. After inspection, O.P. told the complainant that the set required replacement of motherboard. The complainant used to visit the office of the O.P. every alternate week since 22/06/2016 for getting the repaired set but O.P. always told the complainant that respective parts were not available with them. The complainant also vide e-mail dated 01/07/2016 and 11/08/2016 intimated the O.P. to take necessary step for repairing the set but to no result. It is alleged by the complainant that the set suffers from manufacturing defect and he has suffered monetary loss, mental agony and also harassment for the inaction and deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.
None came from the side of the O.P. in spite of service of summons to contest the case. The case has proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.
Point for Decision
- Whether the O.P. is deficient in rendering service ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
We have perused the documents on record i.e. Photostat copy of tax invoice, photocopy of service jot sheet, Xerox copies of e-mail correspondences in between the parties on different dates.
It appears that the complainant purchased the subject mobile on 27/01/2016 from the O.P. at a price of Rs.8499/-. The subject set developed some problems and it was deposited with the O.P. on 09/06/2016. From the job sheet it appears that the reported fault is ‘charging time automatic off’. It appears that the subject mobile was under warranty when it deposited with the O.P. It also appears that O.P. has failed and neglected to repair the subject mobile for days together. It also appears that the issue was escalated to the higher authorities of the O.P. but to no good. We think that O.P. has exhibited a gesture of deficiency of service. O.P. has received subject set on 09/06/2016 but has not return the same after repairing till the date as alleged by the complainant.
None came from the side of the O.P. to contradict or controvert the version of the complainant. The evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. In absence of any contrary and controverting materials on record we think that the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
In result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.P. with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
O.P. is directed to return an amount of Rs.8499/- with 5 percent deduction thereof to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
O.P. is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony within said stipulated period.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act and in that case OP shall be liable to pay penal damage at the rate ofRs.5,000/- per month to be paid to this Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree.
