DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.238 of 15
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 19-08.2015
DATE OF ORDER: 10-03-2017
Rajender Singh son of Har Lal aged about 43 years, resident of VPO Mundhal Khurd, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- The Xolo Care Centre, Halwasiya Mall, Bhiwani, through its Manager.
- Jeenu Gift Shop, 52, Adarsh Market, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani through its Proprietor.
- Xolo Mobiles India Ltd., A-56, Sector 64, Noida-201304, UP through its Incharge.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Sh. Rajesh Arya, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 1 & 3.
OP no. 2 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a Xolo mobile against bill No. 44240, IMEI No. 911374750039569 dated 20.09.2014. It is alleged that on 17.03.2015, the mobile set of complainant got some defect about the charging and heating problem and then complainant approached to the OP no. 1 and the OP no. 1 returned the same after repairing after 3 days. It is alleged that the same problem has arisen again on dated 14.04.2015 and after keeping the set for 5 days, the OP no. 1 returned the same to the complainant. It is alleged that the handset again got the same problem and on dated 23.04.2015, the complainant approached to the OP no. 1, the handset of complainant was sent to the company for repairing and after keeping 12 days the handset returned to the complainant. Again on dated 12.06.2015 the complainant approached to the OP no. 1 with his handset without repairing to complainant. The complainant registered a complaint on dated 24.06.2015 vide complaint no. 356460 on helpline number of the OP no. 3, who advised to complainant to visit the care i.e. OP no. 1 and on this the complainant again approached to OP no. 1 but all in vain. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, financial loss and humiliation. Hence the complainant was deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss. Now the complainant has claimed the new mobile alongwith interest and costs by way of filing present complaint.
2. Opposite party no. 1 & 3 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant never approached the service center of respondent company regarding the alleged unit. It is submitted that complainant approached the service centre of the company on 12.06.2015 after approximate nine months of purchase of said mobile as the unit was purchased on 20.09.2014. It is submitted that before 12.06.2015 no complaint was filed by the complaiantn about the alleged mobile and on 12.06.2015 the respondent company has provided services and resolved the issue reported by complainant, but the complainant after got resolved the issued without any proof has made false allegations about some manufacturing defect in the above said mobile. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 & 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 has failed to come present. Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.05.2016.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-4 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that he had purchased the mobile handset in question from OP no. 2 vide bill dated 20.09.2014 Annexure A-1. After sometime the mobile handset became defective. He approached the OP no. 1 the service centre of the OP no. 3 for repair of his mobile handset. The complainant vide job sheet dated 12.06.2015 Annexure A-2 deposited his mobile handset with OP no. 1 for repairs but the OP no. 1 returned the mobile handset without repair.
7. The counsel for OP no. 1 & 3 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the warranty of the mobile handset is subject to terms and conditions of warranty. He submitted that the complainant after nine months from the date of purchase approached the OP no. 1 for the alleged defect, it means the mobile handset was working properly for 9 months, hence the allegation of manufacturing defect is false and baseless. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the company.
8. The mobile handset in question was deposited by the complainant with OP no. 1 vide job sheet dated 12.06.2015 but the same was not repaired by the Ops as per the contention of the complainant. The mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant on 20.09.2014 for Rs. 10,400/-, it means it worked properly about 9 months. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to refund Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant against the mobile handset of the complainant. The complainant is directed to deposit his mobile handset with accessories with the Ops within 15 days from the date of passing of this order and the Ops are directed to refund Rs. 8,000/-to the complainant within 30 days from the deposit of the mobile handset etc. in question with them. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:10-03-2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh) (Anamika Gupta)
Member Member
