Delhi

StateCommission

A/426/2017

VIKAS JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

HCL TOUCH & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Sep 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision: 27.09.2017

 

 

First Appeal-426/2017

(Arising out of the order dated 20.7.17 passed by the District Forum-(West), Janak Puri, in complaint case No. 550/15)

 

 

 

In the Matter of:

 

Vikas Jain

S/o Satish Kumar Jain 

R/o 110, Arihant Nagar

Punjabi Bagh West

New Delhi-110026

……Appellant 

 

 

                                    Versus

 

1. HCL Touch Service Centre Manager (Mohit)

       G-5 (III) A, Shop No. 5/126 & 5/127,

       Janak Puri District Centre,

       Janak Puri, New Delhi.

 

2. Xiaomi India,

       C/o IKEVA Business Park Kadubee,

       Sonahallli, Marathalli Sarjapur,

       Outer Ring Road,

       Banglore-560103.

 

3. Flipkart India Ltd.,

       Vaishnavi Summit No.6/B,

       7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3rd Block,

       Koramangla, Banglore-560034.

 

4. WS Retail Service Pvt. Ltd.,

       42/1 & 43 Kacherakanhalli Village,

       Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk,

       Bangalore.

                                                                            …….Respondents

 

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the impugned order dated 20.7.17 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (West), Janak Puri, New Delhi in Complaint case No. 550/15. Not satisfied with the order of the Ld. District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant had filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging therein that appellant/complainant had purchased Redmi 1s (Xiaomi) mobile handset on 21.10.2014 through Flipkart India Ltd. i.e. respondent No. 3/OP no. 3 from WS Retail Service Pvt. Ltd., i.e. respondent No. 4/OP No. 4 manufactured by Xiaomi India i.e. respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 for sum of Rs.5999/-. The mobile handset was given to the service centre of the respondent No.2/OP No.2 for repairs several times vide separate job sheets including job sheet Nos. JS15062700403 dated 27.06.2015, JS15070300154 dated 03.07.2015, JS 15070400269 dated 17.07.2015 and JS 1507200398 dated 20.07.2015. But the opposite parties failed to repair and return the mobile handset. Hence present complaint was filed for directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.5999/- i.e. cost of the mobile handset and pay compensation of Rs.95000/- on account of mental, physical and financial harassment caused to the appellant/complainant by opposite parties.
3. Respondent No.1, 3 & 4/OP No. 1,3 & 4 appeared and filed their separate written statements raising similar preliminary objections of maintainability and jurisdiction, cause of action, concealment of true and material facts and that the complaint is false and frivolous. Respondent No. 3/OP-3 had stated that there was no contract of service between the appellant/complainant and the respondent No. 3/ OP No. 3. The respondent No.3/OP No.3 had delivered the mobile handset to respondent No. 2/OP No.2. It was further stated that there was no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 3/OP No. 3 and prayer for made for dismissal of the complaint. 
4. Respondent No. 1 & 4/OP No. 1 & 4 asserted that the appellant/complainant had purchased the mobile handset. The mobile handset was delivered to the service centre for repairs and the mobile was repaired but the appellant/complainant refused to accept the said handset. It was alleged that there was no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 1 & 4/ OP No. 1 & 4 and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex-parte.
6. Thereafter the appellant/complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the same facts as had been alleged in the complaint.
7. Respondent No. 1, 3 & 4/OP No.1, 3 and 4 also filed their evidence by way of affidavits.
8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the Ld. District Forum passed the following order:-

 

“From the complaint, replies of opposite parties No. 1,3 & 4 affidavits submitted by the parties and documents relied upon by the complainant. It is common case of the parties that the complainant on 21.10.2014 purchased Redmi 1s (Xiaomi) mobile handset for sum of Rs.5999/- from opposite party No. 4 manufactured by opposite party No. 2 through opposite party No. 3. The mobile handset developed fault within six months from the purchase that is within warranty. The mobile handset was delivered to service centre on 27.06.2015, 03.07.2015, 17.07.2015 and 20.07.2017. The service center and the opposite parties failed to repair the mobile to the satisfaction of the complainant. They also failed to return the mobile handset.

          Hence the complainant succeeded to prove that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party no. 1 being service provider, opposite party No. 4 seller and opposite party No. 2 manufacturer of the mobile handset. The complain        ant is deprived of his right to use the mobile handset. He has also suffered loss of mobile handset. He suffered mentally, physically and financially, therefore, the opposite parties No. 1, 2 & 4 are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

          Therefore, we direct opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 to refund Rs.5999/- cost of mobile handset and pay a compensation of Rs.2500/- on account of mental, physical and financial harassment.”

 

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation to the tune of Rs.95,000/-.
10. We have heard the arguments of the appellant/complainant at the admission stage and carefully gone through the records. We find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum as the District Forum has already ordered to refund the price of mobile handset i.e. Rs.5,999/- and also awarded Rs. 2,500/- towards compensation on account of mental, physical and financial harassment. If we see the price of the mobile handset, amount awarded by the Ld. District Forum is adequate. It will not be justified to award Rs.95,000/- as compensation as the appellant/complainant has not provided any documentary proof or any other evidence to show how he has suffered the loss of Rs.95,000/-. The consumer fora are not meant for enrichment of consumers.
11. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that the Ld. District Forum has adequately granted the relief to the appellant/complainant and find no reason to enhance the compensation. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine.
12. A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as well as to Ld. District Forum-(North), Tis Hazari for necessary information.
13.        File be consigned to record room.

         

 

(Justice Veena Birbal))

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member