Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 612.

                                                          Instituted on     : 27.10.2017

                                                          Decided on       : 21.09.2018.

Gaurav Malik aged 29 years s/o Sh. Jagbir Singh R/o 81A/10 Jasbir Colony, Near Shila Bye Pass Chowk, Rohtak 124001 Mobile No.9729350280.

                                                          .......................Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Xiaomi India, C/o Ikeva Business Center, 8^th Floor Umiya Business Bay Tower 1, Cessna Business Park, Kadubeesanahalli Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer ring road, Banglore-560103.
2. Dhingra Services, 1^st floor, Beside Vijaya Bank, Narayana Complex, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak, Haryana Contact No.9355558455.

                                                          ……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                   Opposite party No.2 exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased  a Red MI mobile online for a sum of Rs.10998/- on 03.08.2017. That just after 2 months of its purchase, the above said mobile phone started creating problem. On 10.10.2017 complainant plug ear phone in the mobile set and it got switched off and the complainant was unable to make calls and attending calls without earphone. That complainant contacted with the respondent No.2 on 11.10.2017 but opposite party no.2 told that they will charge Rs.6537/- as repair charges but the complainant refused to pay the same as the phone was within warranty period. That the respondents are legally bound to replace/repair the same but they are un-necessarily harassing the complainant and supplied a defective mobile set. That there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.10998/- alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service and as such  was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.12.2017 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of respondent No.1 or any of its agents. The complainant was duly advised by the authorized service center of the respondent No.1 to pay the estimated costs for repair since any kind of customer induced damage such as damage to PCB is not covered under the warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product. That the product was held to be “Out of Warranty” due to the alleged reason. That mere allegations and unsupported averments cannot be held against the respondent No.1 and the complainant is required to prove manufacturing defect in the product. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile on 03.08.2017 and as per job sheet Ex.C4 defects appeared on 11.10.2017 i.e. just after two months of its purchase but the opposite party demanded Rs.6357/- as service charges from the complainant whereas the phone was  within warranty period. Complainant made so many calls and emails placed on record as Ex.C7 to Ex.C12 but the matter could not be resolved. On the other hand, document Ex.R1 filed by the OP No.1 itself shows that there was warranty of phone including no display/abnormal display phone/unable to log or make calls. Hence the defect of mobile in question covers under warranty. However, opposite party No.1 has not placed on record any technical report to prove the fact that the alleged defect in the mobile was ‘customer induced damage’. Hence the objection of OP is turned down and the complainant is entitled for the relief.  

6.                          Accordingly the complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the  opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of Rs.10998/- (Rupees ten thousand nine hundred ninety eight only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 27.10.2017 till its realisation. Opposite party No.1 shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses and compensation on account of deficiency in service to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile in question to the OPs/service centre at the time of payment by the OP No.1, if the same is in his possession.  

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

8.                          File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

21.09.2018.

                                                          .....................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.