Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/497

Shri Rakesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xolo - Opp.Party(s)

08 Sep 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution: 27.07.2015

Complaint Case. No.497/15                                        Date of order: 08.09.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Shri Rakesh Sharma S/O Late Shri R.N. Sharma R/O WZ -45, Bal Udhyan Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059                                                                                 Complainant

VERSUS

The Managing Director, Xolo Head Office, A-56, Sector-64 Noida, Uttar Pradesh-2013

           Opposite party no.1

The Manager, Mayank Services, Xolo Care, WZ-168, 1^st floor, Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, Opp. Metro Pillar No.670, Delhi-110059

                                                                                                                      Opposite party no.2

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            Shri Rakesh Sharma named above herein the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Managing Director XOLO and another here in after in short referred as the opposite parties briefly stating that the complainant on 03.10.2014 purchased a mobile handset make “XOLO Q900s ” with IMEI no.911372250104149  from Mangla Telecom Centre manufactured by the opposite party no.1 for sale consideration of Rs.8900/- vide invoice no.11819 dated 03.10.2014 with one year warranty. The mobile handset started giving problem within five months of the purchase and stopped functioning on 10.03.2015. The complainant deposited the handset with the opposite party no.2 authorized service center of the opposite party no.1 for repairs on 14.03.2015. The opposite party no.2 told the complainant that the mobile handset will be repaired and returned within five days. The complainant after five days visited the opposite party no.2 and was told that the mobile handset was sent to factory for repairs and will be returned after seven days. When the complainant protested that there is breach of warranty condition as the mobile handset is to be returned in promised period. Thereupon the opposite party no.2 returned the unrepaired mobile handset on 21.03.2015. The complainant was left with no option except to purchase a new mobile handset on 04.04.2015. The complainant sent a Legal notice to the opposite parties. But to no effect. Therefore, the opposite parties are deficient in service. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to replace the old mobile handset with a new mobile handset or refund Rs.8,900/- cost of mobile handset with interest @ 24% per annum, pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation for physical, mental and monetary harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. 

            After notice the opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared and filed joint reply of the complaint taking preliminary objections that the compliant is false and frivolous.The complaint is filed with ulterior motive on false and frivolous grounds just to harass the opposite parties.

            On merits the opposite parties admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile handset on 03.10.2014 and was given for repairs on 14.03.2015. But the complainant refused to send the handset for repairs to factory. The opposite party no.1 is ready to repair the mobile handset. But the complainant was adamant for replacement of the mobile handset in alternative to refund cost of the mobile handset. It is further asserted that the mobile handset can be repaired therefore, the same can not be replaced. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other allegations are vehemently denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost. 

            The complainant filed rejoinder of the reply of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 controverting stand of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and reiterating his stand taken in the complaint. He once again prayed for directions to the opposite parties to replace the mobile handset in alternative refund price of the mobile handset and pay compensation of Rs.70,000/- for mental agony, physical exertion and loss of business and practice.

            When Shri Rakesh Sharma complainant was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, he tendered his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. The complainant also relied upon  invoice no.11819 dated 03.10.2014 and job sheet no.310001219052 dated 14.03.2015 and legal notice dated 12.04.2015

            When the opposite parties no.1 and 2 were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, they filed affidavit of Shri Amardeep Singh narrating facts of the reply.

            The opposite parties no.1 and 2 have also submitted written arguments in support of their case.

            We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record carefully and thoroughly.

            The complainant from the affidavit, invoice dated 03.10.2014, job sheet dated 14.03.2015            and admission of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 is able to prove that he on 03.10.2014 purchased a mobile handset make “XOLO Q900s ”with IMEI no.911372250104149  from Mangla Telecom Centre manufactured by the opposite party no.1 for sale consideration of Rs.8900/- with one year warranty. The mobile handset stopped working within warranty. The complainant deposited the handset with the opposite party no.2 authorized service center of the opposite party no.1 for repairs on 14.03.2015.

The case of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 is that the complainant refused to send the handset for repairs to the factory.  Whereas the case of complainant is that the mobile handset was given for repairs and was not returned within stipulated period as promised by the opposite parties.

From pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record it is admitted case of the parties that the mobile handset was given for repairs by the complainant to the opposite party no.2 within warranty. But the mobile was returned by the opposite party no.2 as the complainant refused to send the mobile handset for repairs. The opposite parties always remained ready to repair the handset as per terms and conditions of the product.

            Therefore, we direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to repair the mobile handset of the complainant within 15 days from deposit of the mobile handset in default of repair in time the opposite parties shall refund cost of the mobile handset with interest @ 9% per annum from filing the complaint till actual realization.

Order pronounced on :   08.09.2017

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          ( R.S.  BAGRI )

    MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT