Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/671/2017

MANJEET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

XIAOMI TECH. - Opp.Party(s)

GS GILL

30 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMJAMMU

Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act 1987

                                                          .

 Case File  No                245/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution      06/10/2017

 Date of Decision          02-02-2018

 

Manjeet Singh

S/O Sh.Kulwant Singh

R/O Aitham Post Office Aitham

Tehsil & Distt.Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

         V/S

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

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

Outer Ring RoadBanglore-560103,,Karnataka.

2.Cell Shell430JMC Main Road High Court

  Janipur Jammu-180007.

3.PSV SolutionIst Floor Ext.7Near Dogra Higher

  Secondary School Shastri NagarJammu.

                                                                                                                                                      Opposite parties

 

CORAM:-

                 Khalil Choudhary   Distt.and   Sessions Judge          President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                      Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                               Member                                          

       

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J and K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.G.S.GillAdvocate for complainant present.

Mr.Arvind Khajuria Advocate for OP1 present.   

Nemo for Ops2 and 3.

 

 

                                                                      ORDER

                     

                             Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint in hand are that complainant said to have purchased one Redmi 4 2gb, handset from OP2 on07-09-2017 for sale consideration of Rs.8000/-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 some manufacturing defect, like, signal problem, sensor problem resulting in automatic switch off, remained hanged for hours together and also the features of the handset remained non-functional complainant approached OP3for either replacement or removal of defects occurred in the handset on15-09-2017.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 deviceOP3 on20-09-2017 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 on22-09-2017 for removal of defects in the handset and OP3 on25-09-2017 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.

                      On the other handOP1 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 4 mobile phone for Rs.8200/-from an unauthorized selleri.e.the OP2 vide invoice dated 07-09-2017 .That on22-09-2017 complainant approached authorized service centre of OP1 in connection with defects in the product.The technicians of the authorized service centre of OP1 duly received the product,generated the service job sheet number and provided the job sheet to complainant.After examining the product for defectsit was ascertained that the product had suffered liquid damage.The technicians of the authorized service centre of OP1 duly informed the complainajhnt about the liquid damage int hep rocujt and also requesdted the comp-lainant to pay repair costs since customer induced damages are not covered under standard warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product.The compianant however refused to pay the repair cost and the product was duly returned to complainant.

 

                 In so far as OP 2and3 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 OP2&3 to file reply was closed vide order dated 04-12-2017.

                   Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn her own evidence affidavit and affidavit of Sukhwant Singh. 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.Manu Kumar Jain Authorised 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 OP1but within few days from its purchase, handset was marred by defectshoweverdespite repeated requestsOPs failed to remove  the alleged defects. On the other handOp2&3 despite service of notice did not choose to defend themselves before the Forumthereforetheir 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 OP2 and3 to remove alleged defects same went unchallenged from OP2 and3 side.

                 In support of his allegations, complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Sukhwant Singh which are verbatim reproduction of contents of complainttherefore need no reiteration. Complainant has also placed on record copy of cash bill.            

               On the other hand OP2  and 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 OP2 and3 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   iiof the Consumer Protection Act1987 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 and3 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 OP2 and 3despite making repeated requests, therefore, a case is made out by complainant for deficiency in service on the part of OP 2and 3 in not redressing his grievance.

                  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 OPsas such,OP1 is directed to refund cost of handset to the tune of Rs.8200/to the complainant, who in turn returned the handset with all accessories to OPs. OPs,2 and 3 are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation charges of Rs.2000/-to the complainant. The awarded amount be deposited 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)                                        

 02-02-2018                                                (Distt.  and  Sessions Judge)

 Agreed by                                                      President                                                      

                                                                       (District Consumer Fourm)

Ms.Vijay Angral                                                 Jammu.

Member

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member