Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 66.
Instituted on : 12.02.2018.
Decided on : 23.04.2019.
Mohit age 21 years, s/o Sh. balkishan H.No.1869A/34, New Vijay Nagar, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Global Mobile Care, 331/6, Delhi Road, Opp. C.R. Institute of Law, Rohtak-124001.
- Xiomi technology India Pvt. Ltd., 5thflr, delta Blk, Embassy Tech Sq. Marathalli-Saejapur outerm ring Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubeesanahali, Bengluru, Karnatak-56010.
- Amazon.in, unit no.1, Khewat/khata No.373/400 Mustatil No.31 Major Distt. Road 132, Taoru, Haryana122015.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 already exparte.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Sh.Sandeep Raj Advocate for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased a Redmi4-FDD-3+32g Black mobile phone the online Amazon.in for a sum of Rs.8499/- vide IMEI No.866459039179024 dated 12.10.2017. That opposite party No.2 told the complainant in case of any default occurred in the mobile phone, one year free warranty/replacement will be provided by the opposite party No.2 through their authorized service centre i.e. opposite party No.1. That in the month of January 2018 the said mobile phone started creating problem like hanging, abnormal battery indicator, system freeze on standby network drop in both sim. That complainant approached the opposite party no.1 on 09.01.2018 and deposited his mobile which was returned to the complainant after few days but again the same problems appeared in the mobile set. That complainant again deposited his mobile set with the opposite party on 09.02.2018 which was returned after repair, but the alleged mobile again started creating problems. That complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the mobile set or to refund the price but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of mobile phone i.e. Rs.8499/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.50000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.03.2018 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that service centre of respondent no.2 duly received the complainant’s product, examined it for defects and repaired the product as necessary, in accordance with the warranty terms and conditions as applicable and under which the product was sold. That complainant has failed to provide any substantive proof regarding manufacturing defects in the product. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that opposite OP No.3 act as a facilitator between buyer and seller of the goods and services via the said website which provides an online marketplace platform to sellers to sell their product online to the prospective buyers. That OP No.3 is neither responsible for the products that are listed on the website by various third party sellers nor does it influence any customer in any manner. Thus the complainant’s allegations are completely misplaced and unfounded and do not constitute a valid cause of action. That the present complaint merits dismissal qua the OP No.3.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 27.09.2018. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 in its evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, document Ex.R2/B to Ex.R2/E and closed his evidence on 06.02.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.3 in its evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, document Ex.RW1/1 and closed his evidence on dated 17.01.2019.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant had purchased the mobile set on 12.10.2017 and as per job sheet Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, there were defects in the mobile set such as “Abnormal Battery Indicator, System freeze on standby”. It is also observed that the defects appeared in the mobile set just within three months of its purchase and but the same could not be removed by the opposite parties within warranty period which proves deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such opposite party i.e. manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.2 to refund the price of mobile set Rs.8499/-(Rupees eight thousand four hundred ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 12.02.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving of awarded amount.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
23.04.2019.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
