Order-5.
Date-17/10/2016. .
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case in short is that he bought one MI REDMI 2 PRIME Phone from Flipkart on 16-10-2015 from OP2 but for some technical fault he deposited it to XIAOMI’s (MI) Official Service Centre i.e. HCL authorized MI service centre, 20 Park Street, Kolkata – 16, OP1 on 20-05-2015 within its warranty period. Thereafter, two and half months passed but OP1 did not give any particular time or date when the said mobile set would be given back to the complainant after repair. The OP1 also did not provide any proper update about the time of delivery and it also did not respond to any query of the complainant. OP1 also did not respond to the phone call of the complainant. The complainant also mailed to the office of MI India (OP2) and OP2 told the complainant to wait for sometime and assured that it would replace the phone with a new one but ultimately OPs did not do anything. Hence, this case.
None appeared on behalf of the either of the OPs to contest the case nor the OPs filed any written version. The case has proceeded ex parte against the OPs.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering services to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have perused the documents on record i.e. service job sheet issued by OP1, retail invoice/bill, copy of the letter addressed to OP1 for return of the phone in question and other documents on record.
It appears that the complainant purchased the subject phone (MI REDME 2 PRIME Phone) from Flipkart on 16-10-2015. It also appears that the said subject phone developed technical fault and the complainant deposited it with OP1 being the official service centre on 20-05-2016 for repairment within its warranty period. Complainant also mailed to OP2 alleging the matter and the complainant was assured that they would replace the phone set with a new one. But sadly enough we find that the OPs have slept over the matter and did not render service to the complainant in repairing the mobile set or replace it with a new one. We also find that considerable time has elapsed but to no good.
None came from the side of the OPs to challenge or contradict the version of the complainant as adduced in Evidence and laid down in the petition of the complaint. In absence of any contrary and controverting materials on record and having regard to the materials on record we think that the OPs have exhibited a gesture of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and as such, the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
In result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant complaint be and the same is allowed ex parte but on merit against the OPs.
OPs are jointly and severally directed to replace the subject mobile set of the complainant with a new one of similar specification, defect-free without any cost within 15 days from the date of this order apart from litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
OPs are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain, agony and harassment.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act and in that case OP shall be liable to pay penal damage at the rate ofRs.100/- per diem to be paid to this Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree.
