Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/758/2017

ANIRUDH - Complainant(s)

Versus

XIAOMI TECH. - Opp.Party(s)

GS GILL

16 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File  No.                314/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution       22-11-2017

 Date of Decision          16-02-2018

 

Anirudh,

S/O Late Sh.Krishan Dutt,

R/O H.No.34 Rampura,

Gandhi Nagar,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

         V/S

1.M/S Xiamoi Tech India Pvt.Ltd.

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

Outer Ring Road,Banglore-560103,,Karnataka.

2.Sane Retails Private Ltd.Khasra No.435,

   Road No. 04 Lal Dora Ext.Mahipalpur, Delhi

   Delhi,India-110037,IN-DL.

3.PSV Solution,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.G.S.Gill,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for OP1,present.  

Nemo for Ops2&3.

 

 

ORDER

                     

                         Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint in hand are that; complainant said to have purchased one Redmi  Note 4 (Black,64 GB), handset from OP2 on,22/08/2017 for sale consideration of Rs.12,999/,copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-A.Grievance of complainant is that after few days from the date of purchase, the said handset developed signal problem, sensor problem resulting in automatic switch off remained hanged for hours together and also the features of handset remains non-functional, complainant approached OP3 for either replacement or removal of defects occurred in the handset on,15/09/2017.That the complainant thereafter called OP3 as suggested by him but every time OP3 asked him to call tomorrow as the handset could not be repaired because of shortage of spare parts in the market and this continued for some days and ultimately when complainant insisted for return of handset as he was facing hardships because of non availability of communication device,OP3 on,20/10/2017 returned the handset with the assurance that the defects have been removed and it will function properly. Complainant further submitted that after two days of its repair the handset again started giving trouble and even after repair the handset did not function properly, as such the complainant again approached OP3 on,22/10/2017 for removal of defects in the handset and OP3 on,30/10/2017 handed over the handset to him after repairing the same. Allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached Ops either for removal of defects or replacement of same, but the Ops paid no heed to his requests and made the handset functional. Submission of complainant is that Ops delivered handset which was marred by manufacturing defect, therefore, same constitutes deficiency in service, therefore, prays for refund of cost of handset or in the alternative replacement of handset with a new one and in addition, also prays for compensation and litigation charges 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 unauthorized seller of the products sold by OP1 in India and the OP3 is an authorized service centre of OP1.The complainant has purchased the phone sold under the Mi brand,namely,the Redmi Note 4 mobile phone for Rs.12,999/ from an unauthorized seller,i.e.the OP2 vide invoice dated 22/08/2017 .That on,01/11/2017 complainant approached authorized service centre of OP1 in connection with defects in the product. On examination by the service engineer, it was ascertained that the product was facing issue related to failure to power on in the product. The service engineer duly recorded the issue in service job sheet and provided the job sheet to complainant. After examining  and reviewing the  product at the service centre, the defects related to failure to power on in the product was duly repaired by the technicians of the authorized service centre of OP1,as per the standard warranty conditions and the product was duly returned to complainant in proper working condition.

                     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, 25-01-2018.

                   Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn her own evidence affidavit and affidavit of Rohit Sharma. 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.Sameer BS Rao Authorized 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 few days from its purchase, 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.                  

              Before heading further, be it noted that OP1 duly provided efficient after sales service when the complainant approached OP3 by replacing the alleged defective original product with a replacement product of same model and the complainant thereafter never approached Op3 or any of its authorized service centres in connection with defects.

                           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 and affidavit of Rohit Sharma which are verbatim reproduction of contents of complaint,therefore,need no reiteration. Complainant has also placed on record copy of cash bill.            

               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 affidavit filed by complainant, it is found that complainant has succeeded in proving his case, against OP,2&3despite making repeated requests, therefore, a case is made out by complainant for deficiency in service on the part of OP,2&3.in not redressing his grievance. From perusal of complaint, as well as, evidence affidavit of complainant we find that complainant has suffered unnecessarily due to retention of handset for about eighteen days for rectification of defects, but despite retention of handset with the Ops,the handset was not made functional, as such the handset of the complainant suffered from manufacturing defect .

                  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.,as such,OP1 is directed to refund cost of handset to the tune of Rs.12,999/to the complainant, who in turn returned the handset with all accessories to OPs. OP1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation charges of Rs.3000/to the complainant. The awarded amount be deposited by OP1 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)                                        

 16/02/2018                                                (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

 Agreed by                                                      President                                                      

                                                                       (District Consumer Fourm)

Ms.Vijay Angral                                                 Jammu.

Member

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member