Punjab

Sangrur

CC/521/2017

Vishal Walia - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Ashish Grover

06 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 521                                                                                         Instituted on:    06.10.2017                                                                                  Decided on:     06.03.2018

 

Vishal Walia son of Shri Adesh Walia resident of H.No.15, Kishanpura Basti, Ward No.3, Sangrur.      

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, 5th Floor, Delta B1k, Embassy Tech Sq, Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Kaverappa  Layout, Kadubeesanahalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka-56010 through its Managing Director.

 

2.   Gaurav Technologies, Opp. Old La Foundation School, Near Madanjeet Kothi, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Partner.

 

3.   Neotel Communications Pvt. Limited 322/20, 1st Floor, 5th Cross Cambridge Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560008 through its Managing Director.

 

4.     Tata Cliq, Tata Unistore Limited Ist Floor, Empire Plaza 2, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg Chandan Nagar, Vikhroli West Mumbai Maharashtra 400083 through its Managing Director.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Ashish Grover,  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1                     :      Shri Sandip Kumar Adv.

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.2,3&4     :       Exparte.

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Vishal Walia, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he online purchased one mobile phone model Redmi Note 3 Gold  from OP No.3 through OP no.4 for an amount of Rs.11999/- vide invoice dated 11.10.2016 and OP had given warranty of one year.   From the very beginning, the mobile set in question started giving problem of hanging, poor battery back and non-catching of network of the network provider. The mobile set also started giving another problem of charging and sensor not working which disturb the complainant too much. The complainant approached the OP no.1 who issued job sheet dated 02.08.2017  and returned the mobile set after repair but the problems persisted. The complainant again visited the OP no.2 with problem of touch and display who again issued job sheet dated 23.09.2017. This time the OP no.2 told that he made every effort to remove the defect but there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question which could not be removed. Then the complainant requested the OPs to replace the defective mobile set with new one as it is within guarantee period but OPs refused to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund the purchase amount of the said mobile phone i.e. Rs.11999/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till  realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs no.2, 3 and 4 did not appear and as such they were proceeded exparte. The OP No.1 had appeared through Shri Sandip Kumar Goyal, Advocate  and filed reply.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.1, it is admitted that the said purchase was carried out vide invoice dated October 11,2016. On both the occasions the product was duly received, examined and repaired as per warranty terms and conditions and delivered to the complainant in proper working condition. It is further submitted that the complainant has failed to provide any substantive proof regarding manufacturing defects in the product.  Mere allegations and unsupported averments in the complaint regarding manufacturing defects in the product cannot be held against the OP no.1 and complainant is required to prove manufacturing defects in the product.                

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP No.1 has tendered an affidavit Ex.OP1/1 and closed evidence.   

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.1, we find that the complainant online purchased one mobile phone model Redmi Note 3 Gold  from OP No.3 through OP no.4 for an amount of Rs.11999/- vide invoice dated 11.10.2016 and OP had given warranty of one year warranty  which is evident from invoice Ex.C-2 on record. The complainant has stated that from the very beginning, the mobile set in question started giving problem of hanging, poor battery back and non-catching of network of the network provider. Thereafter mobile set also started giving another problem of charging and sensor not working which disturb the complainant too much. The complainant approached the OP no.1 who issued job sheet dated 02.08.2017 which is Ex.C-3 on record and returned the mobile set after repair but the problems persisted. The complainant has further stated that the complainant again visited the OP no.2 with problem of touch and display who again issued job sheet dated 23.09.2017 which is Ex.C-4 on record. This time the OP no.2 told that he made every effort to remove the defect but there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question which could not be removed. Then the complainant requested the OPs to replace the defective mobile set with new one as it is within guarantee period but OPs refused to do so.

6.             On the other hand, OP has stated that the complainant has failed to provide any substantive proof regarding manufacturing defects in the product.  Mere allegations and unsupported averments in the complaint regarding manufacturing defects in the product cannot be held against the OP no.1 and complainant is required to prove manufacturing defects in the product but from the perusal of entire record we find that the OP has not produced any document on record to prove their version that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question rather the complainant has proved his case by producing cogent evidence on record. The OPs no. 2,3 &4 did not appear to contest the case of the complainant rather they remain exparte. As such evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted.

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same                                                                                             model. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.2000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                March 6, 2018

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg)   (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                 Member            Member                         President