DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 527
Instituted on: 01.09.2016
Decided on: 07.12.2016
Sahil Bansal son of Shri Naseeb Chand resident of Pappu Di Chakki Ajit Nagar, Barnala Fatak, Tehsil and District Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
- Xiaomi Mi India, 4th Floor, Plot No.183 to 197 & 254 to 258, Bommasandra Jigani Link Road Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bommasandra, Banglore, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.
- Rocket Kommerce LLP , 4th Floor, Plot No.183 to 197 & 254 to 258, Bommansandra Jigani Link Road, Bommansandra Industrial Area, Bommansandra, Bangalore through its Managing Director/ authorized signatory.
- MI Experience Service Centre Shop No.19, Ist Floor, BII/ 1086/1, (Gole Market, Near Levi's showroom), Model Town Ludhiana 141002 through its Manager/ authorized signatory.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri Ritesh Jindal Advocate.
FOR THE OPP. PARTIES : Exparte.
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Sahil Bansal, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he placed an order to purchase one Xiaomi Mi Mobile model Redmi 2 Prime White 16 G with OPs no.1 and 2 which the complainant received and made payment of Rs.7298/-. In the month of June 2016, mobile set was giving problem of display i.e. no display/ no power on and if on automatically switched off etc. On the advice of OPs no.1 and 2 the complainant approached the OP no.3 who after checking the mobile set issued job sheet dated 27.06.2016. Thereafter on 11.07.2016 the complainant approached the OP no.3 who told that said set was sent to the company for its repair. Thereafter the complainant number of times requested the OP no.3 to handover the mobile set and ultimately the OP no.3 told that it is not curable/ repairable. Then the complainant requested the OP no.3 to replace the mobile set with new one as the same is within guarantee/ warranty period but it did not do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to refund the purchase price of defective mobile set i.e. Rs.7298/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and pay Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notices were sent to the OPs but despite service the OPs did not appear and as such OPs were proceeded exparte.
3. In his exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence.
4. After perusal of the documents placed on record and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the complainant placed an order to purchase one Xiaomi Mi Mobile model Redmi 2 Prime White 16 G with OPs no.1 and 2 which the complainant received and made payment of Rs.7298/- which is evidence from Tax Invoice Ex.C-2 but in the month of June 2016, mobile set started giving problem of display i.e. no display/ no power on and if on automatically switched off etc. On the advice of OPs no.1 and 2 the complainant approached the OP no.3 who after checking the mobile set issued job sheet dated 27.06.2016 which is Ex.C-3 on record. On 11.07.2016 the complainant approached the OP no.3 who told that said set was sent to the company for its repair. Thereafter the complainant number of times requested the OP no.3 to handover the mobile set and ultimately the OP no.3 told that it is not curable/ repairable. Then the complainant requested the OP no.3 to replace the mobile set with new one as the same is within guarantee/ warranty period but it did not do so. From the perusal of the job sheet Ex.C-3 we find that defective mobile set was handed over by the complainant to the OP no.3 on 27.06.2016 with faults i.e. no display/ no power on and expected retuned of the mobile set was 11.07.2016. But, as per the version of the complainant OP no.3 did not return the mobile set in question after repair or replacement. The said job sheet substantiates the version of the complainant regarding said defects which are within the warranty period. The OPs have not come forward to contest the case of the complainant rather they chosen to remain exparte. As such the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted.
5. In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to repair the defective mobile set of the complainant and after that same be returned to the complainant under receipt. In case the mobile set in question is not repairable then the OPs will replace the same with new one. We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.3000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment.
6. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.
Announced
December 7, 2016
( Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill) Member President
BBS/-
