Haryana

Ambala

CC/77/2021

Paras Alias Kanwaljeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Parv Communication - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  77 of 2021.

                                                          Date of Institution           :  11.02.2021.

                                                          Date of decision    :  01.03.2022.

 

Paras Alias Kanwaljeet Singh S/o Prem Chand, Resident of House No.3205, Manmohan Nagar, Ambala City, District Ambala (Haryana).

……. Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. Parv Communication, 2679/2, Shop No.2 Patel Road, Jagadhari Gate, Ambala City (Through its Prop/dealer of mob).
2. Authorized service centre of realme Mobile, Shop No.5683, Nicholoson Road, Ambalal Cantt. (Through its Service Manager).
3. Realme Mobile Telecommunications 9India Pvt. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, Tower-Building NO.08, DLF Cyber City, Gurugram-122002, Haryana, India-122002 (Through its Complaint Manager).
4. OPPO Mobiles India Private Limited, Plot No.01, Sector Ecotech-Vill Grater Noida, UP-201306 (Through its MD)

 

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   None for the OP NO.1.

                   OPs No.2 & 4 already ex parte.

                   Shri Akhil Bhasin, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.

 

ORDER:     SHRI VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

1.                 Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the mobile in question with new one upgraded model or to pay Rs.10,000/- i.e. cost of the mobile in question to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of the mobile set, till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.  
   382.  

                   Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

2.                Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone Realme-C-15, RMX2195, Model No.RBSOC1531N, Colour Power Blue, IMEI No.1: 866718053265039, IMEI-2:866718053265021 from OP No.1 and paid Rs.10,000/- vide bill No.596 dated 29.12.2020 and the same mobile purchased with an assurance that during the warranty period if any problem will be raise with the above said mobile then the company of mobile/Authorize Service Centre will be fully responsible for repair and replace the above mobile. On 31.12.2020 after two days, calling time proximity sensor not working, automatic on, off, power working hanging, performance failure occurs from normal use and then the complainant went to the shop of OP No.1 and told all the incident then he advised to the complainant that please go to authorized service centre of realme mobile at Ambala Cantt. then the complainant went to the authorized service centre of OP No.2 and told all the problem to the representative of the OP No.2. On 23.01.2021, complainant went to service centre of the OP No.2 and told all the problem of above said mobile and then the representative of OP No.2 had updated the software of mobile and handed over to him on 01.02.2021 and issued him a job-sheet. After that as when the same mobile phone used by complainant, the problem was same and mobile was not working properly then again the complainant went to the service centre and showed the same problem, then the representative of service centre advised to deposit the same with the service centre as there is defect in it and the same will be handed over to him after repair from the company and issued him an job-sheet bearing No.IN11-068R210205002 dated 05.02.2021. The above said mobile is with the service centre and not handed over to the complainant till date and without mobile the  study of his children is disturbing and the complainant has been harassed. Complainant requested the OPs No.1 and 2 many times as well as visited the office of OP No.2, but all in vain. It is pertinent to mention here that the above mobile in question is fully in the warranty period but  the OPs are not changing the said mobile phone one nor repaired the same, despite repeated requests and visits to the office of the OPs No.1 and 2. This way, the OPs have not only committed deficiency in service but are also indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and submitted that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone realMe C15 on 29.12.2020. The complainant visited its shop for the problem which he was facing in the mobile phone and the OP No.1 has suggested him to visit the service centre for proximity sensor issue. The complainant visited the service centre on 23.01.2021. The complainant again visited the shop of OP No.1 on 28.01.2021 and told that he has visited the service centre on 23.01.2021 and they have updated the software twice but still the problem has not been solved. Lateron, in the presence of complainant, the OP No.1 talked with the service centre person namely Suket and he told that they have sent the issue to their head office for the said proximity sensor and as they will get the approval from their head office, we will change the display sensor. The complainant was not ready to get the display changed for his newly purchased handset and the OP No.1 also suggested the complainant to get the display changed first, if it does not work, then the OP No.1 get the handset replaced. Thereafter, complainant has not visited or contacted the OP No.1. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs No. 2 & 4 before this Commission, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.04.2021 and 07.09.2021, respectively.        

5.                Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability etc. On merits, it is stated that the complainant approached the authorized service centre on 23.01.2021 and 05.02.2021 and submitted his handset device. As per the information, after the regular and continues use of the device for around 1 month (approx) from the date of purchase i.e 29.12.2020, the complainant approached the authorized service centre on 23.01.2021 and submitted his handset device. The technicians of the service centre inspected the hand set and put the device under observation. After observation, the main board was changed and handset was duly repaired on 30.01.2021. The handset was handed over to the complainant on 01.02.2021, with his full satisfaction. After that again on 05.02.2021, complainant approached the authorized service centre and submitted his handset device for the issue of ‘calling time proximity sensor not working’. The technicians of the service centre inspected the hand set and put the device under observation. After the observation, the display assembly was changed and handset was duly repaired on 22.02.2021. It was handed over to the complainant on 24.02.2021 with his full satisfaction. After that the complaint neither raised any complaint nor was any issue reported with the answering OP. It is pertinent to mention here that OP No.3 has always provided prompt services and duly repaired the handset with full satisfaction of the complainant. It is further stated that the OP cannot be held liable in any way considering the facts of the case. Hence, OPs cannot be held liable in any way and without filling the expert report and in the absence of any strong proof the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

6.                Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C1 to C6 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Shri Gaurav Sachdeva, authorized representative of OP No.3, Realme Mobile Telecommunications (India) Private Limited, Gurgram, Haryana  as Annexure OP3/A along with documents Annexure OP3/1 to OP3/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.3.

7.                On the date of arguments, none put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and OP No.1, as such, this Commission heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the OP No.3 and have also carefully gone through the case file.

8.                 Learned counsel for the OP No.3 reiterated the version as mentioned in its written version and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

9.                From the perusal of case file and material on record, admittedly, the complainant had purchased the mobile Realme C15 from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-, Annexure C-4. On 23.01.2021, the complainant approached the OP No.2 regarding defect in the mobile set and handover the same to the OP No.2 vide job sheet Annexure C1 and received the same after rectifying the defect vide Job sheet Annexure C-2 under his signature. From the perusal of Annexure C-5, it is clear that the complainant had handed over the defected mobile handset to the OP No.2 and received the same from the OP No.2 vide Job Sheet Annexure C-3 under his signature.

10.              As per the version of the complainant, he has handed over the mobile in question to the OP No.2 on 05.02.2021 but the same had withheld by it and did not return to the complainant, which the complainant has failed to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence, rather from the Job Sheet Annexure C-3 it is crystal clear that the complainant has received the mobile handset on 24.02.2021 with full satisfaction. Thus in our considered opinion, the OPs cannot be held deficient in providing service or guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice.  

11. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

 Announced:- 01.03.2023.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President