For Complainant          :             Self.

For OP No.1                    :             Self.

For Ops 2 & 3                 :             None.

                                                                        -x-

1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Redmi Y1 handset IMEI No.865398039703048 from OP.2 vide Invoice No.BLR5-341881 dt.05.02.2018 for Rs.10, 999/-, the manufacturer of which is OP No.1.  It is submitted that he received the set on 15.02.2018 and while operating could find hearing problem, Voice breaking, Camera problem and picture dark in the set.  It is further found that the handset was 4 GB RAM but was working as 2 GB and hence on 19.02.2018 he approached Ops 1 & 2 to replace the set with a new one since the set was defective but the Ops advised the complainant to contact OP.3 which is the authorised service centre of OP.1.  It is further submitted that the complainant approached OP.3 which received the set and recorded fault but kept pending the repair with advice that he will contact the Company to arrange a new handset of same model.  As the complainant did not get any reply from OP.3, he again on 09.06.2018 approached OP.3 who conducted a brief repair and issued job sheet but the handset did not function normally as problems returned.  Similarly, the complainant approached the OP.3 on 29.10.2018 that received the set and issued job sheet. After a brief repair, the OP.3 returned the set stating that the set is fault free but there was no change in Camera Lens and hearing activity.  The handset became heat while in use and it became acute for which the handset could not be used and lying with the complainant.  Thus alleging defective set and deficiency in service, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.10, 999/- towards cost of the set with interest @ 12% p.a. from 05.02.2018 and to pay Rs.15, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                         The OP No.1 filed counter by Posts denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the sale of alleged handset to the complainant on 05.02.2018 bearing IMEI No.865398039703048 for Rs.10, 999/- and contended that the complainant on 19.02.2018 had approached the ASC of OP.1 with issue related to the product and the same has been rectified by ASC.  Similarly, on 09.06.2018 and 29.10.2018 the complainant had also approached the ASC with issues related to the product and the problems have been sorted out by the ASC by replacing Sub-Board of the product as per warranty norms and the product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition.  It is further contended that the complainant has not in any way proved that the product is presently suffering from defect or the set has got manufacturing defect and without any substantive evidence the complainant has prayed for refund of cost of the set.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                         Notice on OP.2 was returned un-served.  The OP.3 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner and thus remained ex-parte.  The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  The OP.1 did not file any document though mentioned in his counter.  Heard from the complainant at length and perused the documents available on record.

4.                         In this case purchase of Redmi Y1 handset on 05.02.2018 by the complainant which is manufactured by the OP.1 is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that the product was received by him on 15.02.2018 and while on use he found Mic and hearing problem in the set for which he approached Ops 1 & 2 for replacement of the set with a new one but the Ops advised the complainant to approach their ASC-OP.3.

5.                         It is seen from the job sheet dt.19.02.2018 that the fault description has been mentioned by the ASC as “Mic low sound in non calling state”.  The ASC has further mentioned in the said job sheet that the service is “pending”.  There is no mention about the reason for pending the service.  This is in our opinion, is a clear harassment to the customer-complainant.  The complainant stated that the ASC pending the repair assured the complainant that he will contact the Company for replacement of the set with a new one.  In this situation, the version of the complainant appears to be true.  The OP in his counter at Para-8 stated that the product was duly repaired by the ASC and handed over to the complainant.  This contention of OP.1 is wrong.  In the said job sheet, there is no service information available and hence no service was provided on 19.02.2018 to the set.

6.                         The complainant stated that as no intimation was received from ASC regarding replacement of set with a new one, he approached the OP.3 on 09.06.2018 with defective set.  The OP.3 has issued a job sheet stating fault as “Mic low sound and camera not working”.  This time the OP.3 changed the Sub Board and returned the handset to the complainant.  According to the complainant, the ASC advised that the fault would be reduced after a prolong use but the complainant did not see any development after prolong use.  From this fact, it can be said that the OP.3 was not sure about the perfect functioning of the handset after repair.  Thereafter, the handset became heat and the previous problems became acute day by day.  Hence the complainant has approached the OP.3 on 29.10.2018.  The OP.3 issued job sheet and changed the Sub Board again.  We do not understand as to why the ASC changed the Sub Board for the second time when the first one did not give proper justice to the repairs.  Heat problem in the set was not mentioned in the job sheet.  Hearing activity of the hand set was also not up to mark.  The ASC on being asked replied that the complainant is to approach OP.1 for a new set.  Further the complainant stated that the handset due to heat and other problems is lying unused.

 7.                        In the above circumstances, we come to the conclusion that during warranty period, there developed multiple problems in the handset and in spite of several round of repairs, the ASC could not bring the set in to working order for which the set is lying unused with the complainant. Non-functioning of the set in spite of repairs clearly indicates that the handset in question has got inherent manufacturing defect.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get the cost of the handset with interest.  Further due to defective set and unsuccessful repairs, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for some compensation and cost.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

8.                         Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.1 being liable is directed to refund Rs.10, 999/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 15.02.2018 in lieu of the defective set and to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)