Punjab

Sangrur

CC/265/2018

Gaurv Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ashish Kumar Grover

13 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  265

                                                Instituted on:    07.06.2018

                                                Decided on:       13.09.2018

 

 

Gaurav Kumar S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar R/O H.No.11, Prem Basti, Sangrur now residing at Gali No.5, Khalifa Bagh, Opp. Khanna Gas Agency, Dhuri Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Xiomi Technology India Private Limited, 5^th Floor, Delta Blk, Embassy Teeh Sq. Marathalli – Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubeesanahalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560010 through its Managing Director.

2.             Gaurav Technologies, Street No.10, Prem Basti, Near Surjit Mistri Tool Wala, Sangrur through its proprietor/partner.

3.             E-Mobies, Anjaneya Infrastructure Project No.38 & 39, Soukya Road, Kacherakanahalli, Hoskote Taluka, Bangalore Rural, District Bangalore-560067 through its Managing Director.

4.             Amazon India, Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwarama (W), Bangalore-560055 through its Managing Director.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Shri P.S.Rattan, Adv.

For OP No.4             :               Shri P.S.Sidhu, Adv.

For OP No.2&3         :               Exparte.

 

 

 

Quorum:   Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member   

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

 

1.               Shri Gaurav Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one mobile Redmi 4A having IMEI number 865404036732269 from OP number 3 through OP number 4 vide invoice number BLR5-21128 dated 6.7.2017 for Rs.5999/-. Further case of the complainant is that during the warranty period, the mobile set in question developed problem of hanging and net work problem and the battery back up was also low to the tune of 5-6 hours against 15-16 hours, as such, the complainant approached the OPs to replace the mobile set in question as it was suffering from the problem of heating, touch not working, auto reboot etc.  It is further averred that the complainant and his friend Navdeep Singh also visited to the OP number 2 on 25.5.2018 complaining alleged defects, but all in vain.    By this way, the complainant has been harassed a lot by the OPs. Thus, alleging   deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the price of the mobile set  and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.               In reply filed by OP number 1, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 1.  It is stated that on 23.05.2018, the complainant approached the OP number 2 with a complaint of heating and touch screen not working in the product and the service engineer duly recorded the issue in the service job sheet and after examining and reviewing the product at the service centre, the defects relating to heating and touch screen not working in the product were duly repaired by the technician and after that the mobile set in question was  returned to the complainant.   On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question and lodging of complaint regarding the product has been admitted, however, it is stated that the mobile set in question was returned to the complainant after repairs.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.               In reply filed by OP number 4, preliminary objections are taken up on the ground that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer,  that the complainant has not bought any goods from ASSPL and it has acted as an intermediary only.  On merits, it is denied that the complainant is a consumer of the OP. Similar facts as mentioned in the objections are mentioned in the remaining part of the reply and lastly the Op has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.               Record shows that the OP number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 2 and 3 were proceeded exparte.

 

5.               The learned counsel for the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6, the copy of bill,  affidavit of the complainant and service record as well as affidavit of Pal Singh and has also produced the report of Damanjit Singh along with his affidavit. The learned counsel for OP number 4 has also produced affidavit along with Annexure OP4/1 to OP4/4 and closed evidence.

 

6.               We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.                 Ex.C-1 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 4 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.5,999/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question and availed the services of the OPs, which has been manufactured by OP number 1, whereas OP number 2 is the service centre of OP number 1.

 

 

8.               In the present case, the complainant has alleged that during the warranty period the set in question suffered the problem of heating, touch not working, auto reboot etc. and thereafter he tried to switch on the same, and as such he approached OP number 2,  but nothing was done by the OP number 2 despite repeated visits of the complainant. Further to show that the mobile set in question is defective one, the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-5 the expert opinion report of Damanjit Singh along with his affidavit Ex.C-6, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the mobile set in question is suffering from manufacturing defects and the problem there in is not curable.  On the other hand,  the OPs have produced nothing on the record to show that the mobile set in question is in working order or it has no problem therein.    As such, we are of the considered opinion that the mobile set in question became defective during the warranty period, which was even not repaired by the Ops despite repeatedly visiting of the complainant to the OP number 2. It is worth mentioning here that during the present proceedings the OP number 2 took the mobile set in question for checking, but the same was returned as it is saying that it has no fault therein.  But, we are unable to go with this contention of the Ops that the mobile set in question is free from any fault.  Had the mobile set in question free from the fault, then what was the necessity for the complainant to file such a complaint before this Forum.   As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.

 

 

9.               In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to refund to the complainant the cost of mobile set i.e. Rs.5999/-, however, subject to returning of the old mobile set along with all its accessories to the OPs number 1 and 2 by the complainant. The OPs number 1 and 2 shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and  litigation expenses.

 

 

10.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 13, 2018.

                                               

 

                                       

                                                     (Sarita Garg)

                                                Presiding Member

 

 

 

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                        Member