DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 173
Instituted on: 02.05.2017
Decided on: 01.09.2017
Vikas Goyal son of Nanu Ram resident Ward No.1, Grid Colony, Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. Xiaomi Mi India, 4th Floor, Plot No.183 to 197&254 to 258, Bommasandra Jigani Link Road Bommasandra.
2. MI Experience Service Centre shop No.1, Ist Floor, BII/1086/1, ( Gole Market, Near Levi's showroom), Model Town Ludhiana 141002, through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
3. Hewlett Packard Limited HP Corporate Office, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Adugodi, Hosur Road, Bangalore, District Bangalore, Karnataka India, 560030 through its Chairman/ Managing Director.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri Tarun Goyal, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY No.1 : Shri Sandip Kumar Goyal Adv.
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2 : Exparte
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3 : Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Vikas Goyal, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased Redmi Note 3 Gold 32 G mobile from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.11999/-. After purchase of it, the mobile phone started giving problem of dialing and hanging. When the complainant wants to dial to someone it makes the call to another person whose contract number is saved in the phone book for which the complainant approached OP no.2 authorized service centre of the company . The OP no.2 told the complainant that there is no problem in the mobile set and they returned the mobile to the complainant and when complainant told them to issue job sheet they refused to issue the same. On 3.3.2017 the complainant again approached the OP no.3 then OP no.3 told the complainant that your mobile set cannot be repaired . The complainant called customer care of the company to refund the amount as the mobile is within the warranty but the company did not heed to the request of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to pay Rs.14999/- with interest or to give mobile phone, ,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.30000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no.2 did not appear and as such OP no.2 was proceeded exparte on 07.06.2017.
3. In reply filed by OP No. 1, it is stated that the OP no.1's customer care executives duly assisted the complainant with all the issues pertaining to the product and resolved all the issues in product to the compete satisfaction of the complainant. The alleged defects in the present complaint are a consequences of defects in the product and not a consequences of use or mishandling by the complainant. The complainant has failed to provide any substantive proof regarding manufacturing defects in the product. It is submitted that the complainant had also not provided any evidence in connection with the alleged visits to the authorized service centres of the OP no.1. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.1.
4. In reply filed by the OP no.3, preliminary objections on the grounds of mis-joinder and non-joinder and maintainability have been taken up. On merits, it is stated that the complainant never approached the OP no.3, It is denied that the OP no.3 misbehaved the complainant. The product in question is not manufactured by the OP no.3.
5. The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs No.1&3 have tendered documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP3/1 and closed evidence.
6. It is not disputed on record that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in dispute from the OP no.1. It is case of the complainant that the mobile set in question started giving problem of hanging and dialing of a wrong contract number for which he approached the OP no.2 who did not rectify the problem in the mobile set in question nor replace the same. On the other hand the OP no.3 has stated in its reply that the mobile set in question is not manufactured by it so there is no occasion for the complainant to approach the OP no.3. The Op no.1 has stated that the complainant has failed to provide any substantive proof regarding manufacturing defects in the product.
7. The complainant has particularly stated in his complaint that he approached the OP no.2 to rectify the defect in the mobile set in question but they returned the mobile and when the complainant told to issue the job card they refused to issue the same. Surprisingly, when the OP no.2 refused to issue the job card to the complainant, he did not take any step for complaint of the OP no.2 to the higher authorities of the company. The complainant has not produced any copy of letter whereby he raised any protest against the OP no.2 for not issuing the job sheet.
8. It is also strange that the complainant has not produced any other proof which shows that he approached the OP no.2 and OP no.2 is an authorized service centre of the OP no.1. From the perusal of tax invoice dated 18.05.2016 Ex.C-1 we find that the complainant purchased the said mobile set from the Rocket Kommerce LLP 4th Floor Plot no.183 to 197 & 254 to 258 Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bommasandra Banglore but the same was not made a party by the complainant in the present complaint. The complainant had sent a legal notice to the above mentioned party but surprisingly he did not make it a opposite party.
9. For the reasons recorded above, we find that the complainant has totally failed to prove his case. So, the present complaint is dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. Announced
September 1, 2017
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member Member President
