DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 720/2015
Date of Institution : 29.09.2015
Date of Decision : 30.11.2015
Jony @ Arvinder Singh aged about 28 years son of Shri Swaran Singh, resident of near Palli Tailors Gurdwara Street Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
Xolo mobile service centre Chandigarh services Pvt. Limited Ist floor, SCO-274, above State Bank of Patiala, sector 32-D Chandigarh, through its prop./authorized signatory.
Prabhu Kirpa Traders service centre of Xolo mobiles, near Railway Station Sadar Bazar Barnala, through its prop/authorized signatory.
Sahil Mobile Hut Handiaya Bazar Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala, through its prop./authorized signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Gagandeep Garg counsel for complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(BY SHRI S.K. GOEL, PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Jony @ Arvinder Singh has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against the Xolo mobile service centre and others (hereinafter called as the opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Mobile make Xolo 8X-1000 duel sim having IMEI No. 911387600233430 and 911387600333479 from the opposite party No. 3 for Rs. 12,500/- vide invoice No. 544 dated 10.2.2015.
3. It is alleged that in the month of July 2015, the said mobile set created problems of 'auto restart' and 'not switch on' when it was used by the complainant in his daily routine. Since the mobile set was under warranty, so the complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 to remove the defect. However, the opposite party No. 3 advised to handover the mobile set with the opposite party No. 2 (service centre). Therefore, on 13.7.2015 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 to remove the defects from the mobile. The opposite party No. 2 got minor repairs of mobile set and returned the same with the assurance that the mobile set will work properly.
4. It is further alleged that in the next month, the mobile set again created problem and that time the problem was of “memory card not reading”. Therefore, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 and they issued one job card dated 13.8.2015 and told him to come after some days, as it will be repaired by the opposite party No. 1 at Chandigarh. After that the complainant waited for few days and again contacted to opposite party No. 2, where the opposite party No. 2 assured that the mobile was still within the custody of opposite party No. 1. On 10.9.2015 the opposite party No. 2 called the complainant to get his mobile set. But when the complainant reached the opposite party No. 2 at that time the opposite party No. 2 received complainant's mobile set through courier and when authorized person of opposite party No. 2 opened that courier then complainant astonished to see that the screen of the mobile set was broken in transit and complainant refused to accept that mobile. Moreover, the opposite party No. 2 issued one new job card mentioning the problem that “transit damage handset received” and assured the complainant that he would get new mobile set very soon. The opposite party No. 2 also assured that when the opposite party No. 2 would receive the replaced mobile set then a call will be made to the complainant. But no call was made by the opposite parties. Even the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 many times, but till today the complainant could not get the mobile set. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
To refund the amount of mobile set i.e. Rs. 12,500/-.
To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental tension and physical harassment.
To pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 were duly served, but they failed to appear in the Forum and therefore they were proceeded against exparte.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, cop of bill dated 10.2.2015 Ex.C-2, copy of job card dated 13.7.2015 Ex.C-3, copy of job card dated 13.8.2015 Ex.C-4, copy of job card dated 10.9.2015 Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for complainant and have gone through the documents.
8. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, wherein he reiterated his entire case as mentioned in the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the copy of bill dated 10.2.2015, which shows that the complainant has purchased the mobile in question for Rs. 12,500/- from Sahil Mobile Hut (the opposite party No. 3). In the said invoice it is specifically mentioned that there is a mobile warranty for 12 months. Ex.C-3 is the copy of job card dated 13.7.2015, which shows that the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 (service centre) where the problem of “not switch on and AUTO RESTART have been mentioned by the said service centre. Ex.C-4 is also the copy of job card dated 13.8.2015, which shows that the handset has the problem of “MEMORY CARD READER DEFECTIVE”. Ex.C-5 is also the copy of job card dated 10.9.2015, wherein the problem “transit damage handset defective” is mentioned.
9. Perusal of the invoice and the job cards as referred to above shows that the complainant approached the authorized service centre within the warranty period of one year and the warranty status is mentioned in the warranty column as “yes”.
10. It is the case of the complainant that on 13.8.2015 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 for repairing his mobile set and the opposite party No. 2 told that the set would be repaired by opposite party No. 1 at Chandigarh. It is also the case of the complainant that when he approached the opposite party No. 2 for receiving the mobile set and the opposite party No. 2 received the mobile set from the opposite party No. 1 and on opening the courier the said set was found damaged. This plea of the complainant was duly supported with the description as mentioned in the job card Ex.C-5. Moreover, the opposite parties have not appeared to contest this complaint despite their proper service. The evidence led by the complainant is cogent, reliable and not rebutted. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the mistake was on the part of opposite parties, who have failed to deliver the mobile set in working condition or free from any defect.
11. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to replace the handset with a new one or to refund the amount of Rs. 12,500/-. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,100/- litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
30th Day of November, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
