Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 322.
Instituted on : 25.05.2017.
Decided on : 21.05.2019
Arun son of Sh. Raj Singh, R/o Village Rohad, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, at present residing at H.No. 525, Village Baliyana, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1 Xiaomi Redmi (Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd.) Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. 8th Floor, Tower-I, Umiya Business Bay Marathahalli, Surajpur, Outer Ring Road, Banglore, Karnataka, India- 560103.
2 Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. Anjaneya Infrastructure Project No. 38 and 39, Soukya Road, Kachera Kanahalli Hoskote Taluka, Banglore Rural, Distt. Banglore- 560067, Karnataka- Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office S-405, L-Ground Floor, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048, Delhi.
3 Global Mobile Care, Customer Care Xiaomi Redmi, Near Sunflag Hospital, Dev Colony, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Smt. Ravita, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Sh. Amit Kumar Soni, Advocate for opposite party No. 2.
Opposite party No. 3 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone Xiaomi Redmi Note-3 (Gold, 32 GB) X000HCDPVF having IMEI No. 861375033465679 from the opposite party No. 1 on dated 27.04.2016 for Rs. 11,998/- with one year free warranty/replacement. It is alleged that after few months of the purchase of the mobile in question, it started creating problems i.e. hanging, network problem, mother board problem etc. That the complainant approached the respondent No. 4 and got deposited the mobile in question for repairing and after checking, the officials of respondent No. 4 told that the motherboard of the mobile in question is not working properly. That the complainant requested the concerned officials to repair or replace the mobile in question, but they did not gave any answer. It is further alleged that the mobile is in question is within warranty period, but the respondents did not repair the same. That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective mobile is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 11,998/- towards the cost of mobile in question alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of mobile till the date of actual realization and Rs. 50,000/ as compensation alongwith Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant never approached the respondent No. 1 or any of its agents in connection with issues in the product, which prevented the respondent No. 1 to provide any remedy whatsoever to the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant has not provided any evidence regarding manufacturing defects in the product and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost qua the opposite party No. 1.
3. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply has submitted that the mobile in question is manufactured by the opposite party No. 1 and further submitted that the service has been provided by opposite party No. 3, which is the authorized service center of opposite party No. 1 under the terms of warranty and not the answering respondent. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite part No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite party No. 2.
3. Whereas, opposite party No. 3 failed to appear before the Forum, hence, opposite party No. 3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.07.2017 passed by this Forum.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence on dated 06.12.2018. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence on dated 11.03.2019. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and has closed his evidence on dated 23.04.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that in the present case, complainant has not mentioned a single date to prove that on which date the mobile in question become defective, or on which date complainant contacted the opposite parties. No job sheet or any complaint number has been placed on record by the complainant. As such complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The law cited by ld. counsel for the complainant in I1(2008)CPJ 336(NC) titled as Abhinandan Vs. Ajit Kumar Verma & Ors. is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as in the present case complainant has failed to prove any defect in the mobile in question or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Copy of this of and the order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.05.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
