Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/84/2018

SOURAV KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

XIAOMI TECH. - Opp.Party(s)

MONISH CHOPRA

13 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File  No.                428/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :    01-02-2018

 Date of Decision      :     07-09-2018

 

Sourav Kumar,

S/O Krishan Lal,

R/O Bathinda Punjab,

A/P Narwal Bala,Jammu,

Through Power of Attorney holder/user,

Sahil Sharma S/O Dharam Paul Sharma,

R/O Narwal Bala,Jammu Near Shiv Shakti

Temple,Jammu,J&K.

                                                                                                                                                    Complainant

             V/S

1. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.

   By Rising Star Mobile Pvt.Ltd.

  380 Belerica Road,Sri City Siddam,Agra –Haram Village

Varadaiahpalam  MandalChottoor Distt.Andra Pradesh-517541.,

 

2.TVS Electronic Ltd.4^th Floor Plot Number-193,

   Jigani Link Road,Bommasandra Industrial Area,

  Banglore,1562106(Authorised Indian Distributor of Mi Products).

3.Mi Customer Care Service,Shastri Nagar,Jammu-BMCPD,

    Address-PSV Solutions First Floor Ext-7 Near Dogra Hr.Sec.School,

   Shastri Nagar,Jammu(Authorised Service Centre Jammu)

                                                                                                                                                          Opposite parties                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     CORAM:

                           Mr.Khalil Choudhar   (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.Monish Chopra & Associates,Advocate,for complainant,present.

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for OP1,present.

Nemo for OP,2&3.

 

                                                               ORDER.

 

                     Grievance of complainant as is discernible from the complaint is that, he placed an order for purchase of mobile handset for Sahil Sharma through online make Xiaomi and model Redmi Note 4 Gold 4G+64G on,10-02-2017 for sale consideration of Rs.12,999/, copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-A. Grievance of complainant is that he being a consumer/user of the said handset cannot avail its benefits because the said handset developed some manufacturing/latent defects  which are inbuilt like, abnormal launcher function, flash LED fault, no mike sound in calling state, doesn’t vibrate when on vibration mode, no signal sometimes, internet connectivity problem and auto on off problem, thereafter, complainant contacted to customer complaint contact number-18001036286 for redressal of his grievance, but due to non availability of any customer care service centre at Jammu, but the handset could not be repaired on time. When he came to know about the newly opened authorized service centre at Jammu i.e.OP3 and on 11-01-2018 complainant Sahil Sharma along with his friend visited service centre i.e.OP3 for removal of inbuilt defects in the handset, the employee of the service centre inspected the handset and repaired the same by replacing main board and delivered the handset on the same day, but even repair the handset did not function properly. Allegation of complainant is that even after repair the same problem persisted in the handset. Constrained by the act of OPs complainant served legal notice to Ops,but OPs paid no heed to the request of complainant. 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 and in addition, also prays for compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.40,000/.

                 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. It is further submitted that on,11-01-2017  complainant approached authorized service centre of OP1 with issues related to the product, on examination by the service engineer, it was ascertained that the product was facing issue related to “Abnormal Launcher Function, Flash LED Fault, NO signal(4G)Mic NO Sound in Non calling state in the product, the service engineer duly recorded the issue in service job sheet No.WXIN1801110022114 and provided the job sheet to complainant. After examining and reviewing the product at the service centre, the defects in the product were duly repaired by the technicians of authorized service centre of OP1 as per the standard warranty conditions and the product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition.  It is further submitted that the complainant after few days again approached authorized service centre of OP1 with the complaints regarding the product and the complainant was duly informed to submit the product for repair, but complainant refused to submit the product.

                In so far as OP2&3are 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.

                    Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own evidence affidavit. Complainant has placed on record copy of service record, copy of service order and Special Power of Attorney.

                On the other hand,OP1 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Mr.Sameer BS Rao 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 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, it is to be noted that since parties have lead evidence in the shape of evidence affidavits, which are much or less reproduction of contents of their respective pleadings,therefore,we do not feel it necessary to represent the same again and if need arises, same would be referred hereinafter at appropriate stage.

                        In so far as, allegation of complainant regarding defects in the handset are concerned and failure of OPs,2&3 to remove alleged defects, same went unchallenged from OP,2&3 side.

 

               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 Op2&3 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&3,despite 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.

                  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,OPs2&3 are 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 2&3. OPs,2&3 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-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)                                                07-09-2018                                                                                   (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

 Agreed by                                                                                           President                                                      

                                                                                   (District Consumer Forum)

Ms.Vijay Angral                                                                             Jammu.

Member

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member