Mr. Varun Kohli filed a consumer case on 20 Aug 2015 against XOLO Head Office in the DF-I Consumer Court. The case no is CC/113/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 31 Aug 2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH
============
Consumer Complaint No | : | CC/113/2015 |
Date of Institution | : | 19/02/2015 |
Date of Decision | : | 20/08/2015 |
Varun Kohli son of Sh. Jitender Kohli, resident of House No.78, Sector 20, HUDA Kaithal (Haryana).
….Complainant
1. Xolo, Head Office A-56, Sector 64, Noida – 201301, U.P. India, through its Manager.
2. Xolo Care Pvt. Limited, F1 Info Solutions and Services P, SCO 274, 1st Floor, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh.
…… Opposite Parties
SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA MEMBER
For Complainant | : | Complainant in person. |
For OP Nos.1 & 2 | : | Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate. |
In brief, the Complainant had deposited his Xolo Q700 mobile handset with the Opposite Parties for repairs. It has been alleged that despite assurances, the Opposite Parties failed to return his aforesaid mobile handset duly repaired. It has been further alleged that the Opposite Parties offered a new mobile handset of a lower model to the Complainant, which he refused to take, due to which the Opposite Parties stopped cooperating him. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.
2. Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.
3. Opposite Parties in their joint written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that the Complainant approached the Service Centre on 30.1.2015 with the problem ‘Touch Screen Defective’ (Annexure C-1). Engineers of the Opposite Parties checked the unit and repaired the mobile handset. After repairs, the Complainant was called on his Mobile No. 9876682989 to collect his unit, but he did not turn up and filed the present Complaint just to harass the answering Opposite Parties. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, answering Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.
5. We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties and have perused the record.
6. The case of the Complainant is that he deposited his Xolo Q700 mobile handset with the Opposite Parties, for repairs, on 30.1.2015, vide job sheet (Annexure C-1). The grouse of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties failed to return his mobile handset, duly repaired.
7. The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that the unit was repaired and after repairs, the Complainant was called to collect his unit, but he did not turn up and rather filed the present Complaint.
8. It is evident from the original bill submitted by the Complainant, on 7.8.2015, that the mobile handset in question was purchased by him on 13.9.2013, for Rs.9500/-, which was later deposited with the Opposite Parties for necessary repairs, on 30.01.2015, vide job-sheet (Annexure C-1). This fact makes it clear that the handset in question was out of warranty and was used by the Complainant, without any problem(s), for a period of approx. 1 year and 4 months. Furthermore, when the case was taken up before the Lok Adalat, no settlement could be arrived. We all are familiar with the fact that with the passage of time, value of every brand new product gets depreciated. Similar is the case of the Complainant. No doubt, the Complainant used the mobile handset in question for 1 year and 4 months i.e. this was an old/out of warranty handset, but still the inability on the part of the Opposite Parties to return the duly repaired handset to the Complainant points out towards deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused physical and mental harassment to the Complainant. In these set of circumstances, it would subserve the ends of justice, if the Opposite Parties be directed to refund the value of the mobile handset, after deducting 25% towards its depreciation value at the maximum.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed to:-
[a] To refund Rs.7125/- towards the cost of the Xolo Q700 mobile handset, after deducting 25% as depreciation value out of the total invoice price;
[b] To pay a composite amount of Rs.3500/- as compensation for deficiency in service, causing mental & physical harassment to the Complainant and towards costs of litigation;
10. The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above, apart from paying composite payment of Rs.3500/- as in sub-para [b] above, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.
11. The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.
20th August, 2015
Sd/-
(SURJEET KAUR)
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/-
(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.