Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/430/2015

Lavleen Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

XOLO Care Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Balwinder Singh Adv.

05 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	430/2015
Date of Institution	:	07.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	05/04/2016

 

                                                

                                                         

Lavleen Singh aged about 27 years s/o Sh.Balwinder Singh r/o House No.9, Sarv Mangal Soceity, Phase-I, Ambala Road, Zirakpur, tehsil –Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.      XOLO Care Centre, SCO No.101, Second Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.

 

2.      Green Tyre Zone (A unit of Nini Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,) SCO-35, Sector 11, Panchkula.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh.Balwinder Singh, Adv. for the complainant

                   Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for OP No.1.

                   Sh.Rajat Nakra, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone make Xolo from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 20.08.2014 for Rs.13,335/-.  In June, 2015, the mobile phone in question stopped working and he contacted OP No.2 who advised him to contact OP No.1 and accordingly, he approached it who after checking the mobile phone refused to repair the mobile phone despite the fact that the same was under warranty.  Thereafter he contacted the service care representative of OP No.1 and after a lot of persuasion, it agreed to accept the mobile phone and then on 16.06.2015, he went to OP No.1 where they told that the defects are not covered under the warranty period. However, under the compelling circumstances, he agreed to pay the repair charges after which they accepted the mobile phone vide work order dated 16.06.2015 despite the fact that the same was under warranty.  Subsequently, he went to OP No.1 to know the status of the mobile phone but it lingered on the matter on the ground that the spares parts were not received.  According to the complainant, sufficient time had lapsed but it failed to repair the mobile phone and during this period, they never made any call to report the status of the mobile phone to him.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           In its written statement, OP No.1 has pleaded that the complainant approached it on 16.06.2015 and the on checking by the engineer, it was found that the unit was physically damaged and the same was acknowledged by the complainant and an estimate of repairs was given to him. However, he refused for the paid repair and thereafter he did not come forward to take his mobile phone inspite of the mobile calls given to him.  It has further been pleaded that it is still ready to deliver the OK unit to the complainant with repair charges as per the company policy. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           In its separate written statement, OP No.2 has admitted the purchase of the mobile phone in question.  However, it has been pleaded that it is the registered seller of the mobile phone and was not authorized to entertain any complaint regarding any problem in the mobile phone and, in case, there is any problem in the mobile phone  including hardware or software, the buyer should have approached the service center and not the seller.  It has further been pleaded that it always assisted/cooperated the complainant by rendering him proper and needful advice. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written replies of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
6.           During course of arguments, it has been argued by the Counsel for the complainant that OP No.1 has failed to repair the mobile phone in question despite the fact that the complainant has agreed to pay the repair charges as per the company policy and as such the complaint is liable to be accepted.
7.           On the other hand, it has been argued by the Counsel for OP No.1 that it is the complainant who is not coming forward to collect the mobile phone despite the repeated mobile calls given to him and as such the compliant is liable to be dismissed. However, we express our regret to accept this submission of OP No.1 because in case, the complainant was not coming forward to collect the mobile phone on its repeated phone calls then they could have easily sent a letter through registered post at available address of the complainant informing that the mobile phone stands repaired and to collect the same but no such letter has ever been written to him nor produced on record. Had the mobile phone in question been actually repaired as alleged by it then it must have produced the same before the Forum or even in the Lok Adalat when the matter was fixed for settlement but no such effort has ever been made on behalf of it. Thus, the evidence on record points out clear deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 but no case is made out for refund of price of the mobile phone because the same was physically damaged as is evident from the job sheet attached with the complaint.  Thus, we feel that ends of justice would be met if lump sum compensation of Rs.5,500/- is awarded to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment suffered by him on account of non-repairing of the mobile phone in question by OP No.1 including litigation expenses.
8.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed with a direction to OP No.1 to handover the mobile phone in question to the complainant after its repairs as per the terms and conditions of the Company Policy. OP No.1 is also directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
9.           This order be complied with by Opposite Party No.1 within 45 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay the awarded amount to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.
10.           However, the complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
11.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

05/04/2016                                                                                    sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER