Haryana

Karnal

CC/60/2017

Ankur Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tara Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Sanduja

12 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No.60 of 2017

                                                      Date of instt. 09.02.2017

                                                      Date of decision 12.04.2018

 

Ankur Mittal resident of House no.603 Sector-12, Urban Estates, Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Tara Telecom, Shop no.35, Mela Ram School Market, Karnal Authorized service center of Xiaomi Technology.

2. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.Ltd. 380-Beleric Road, Sri City, Siddam Agraharam village Varadaiahpalem, Mandal Chittoorh, District-Andhra Pradesh-517541.

      

                                                                    ..…..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Sh. Anil Sharma………Member

               

 

 Present   Shri Pardeep Sandhaja  Advocate for complainant.

                   Opposite party no.1 exparte.

                   Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for OP no.2.

                  

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that on complainant purchased one mobile set of Xiaomi Technologies India i.e. Redmi Note 3 having IMEI no.863408031951206/863408031951214 on 26.11.2016 for Rs.11,999/- from OP no.1 having warranty of one year. After few days of its purchase the mobile set was started giving problem of Auto on off problem and weak battery backup problem. On 28.1.2017 complainant approached the OP no.1 for repair of his unit, but OP no.1 told to complainant that the battery of the unit had gone faulty and the same should be replaced and demanded Rs.850/- for replacement of battery. The complainant told to OP no.1 that the unit is under warranty but OP no.1 did not listen to complainant. The complainant has not left with any other way, paid the charges of repair but the mobile set was not working properly even after replacement of battery. Complainant again approached to OP no.1 and told that the mobile set is not working even after replacement of the batter but OP no.1 did not listen to his genuine request and misbehaved with him. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and the case was fixed for filing written statement. On 3.10.2017 when the case was fixed for filing written statement and last opportunity was granted but none has appeared on behalf of OP no.1 and OP no.1 proceeded against exparte.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written statement in which it is admitted by the OP no.2 that complainant has purchased a phone sold under the Mi brand-namely, the Redmi Note-3 (32GB) for Rs.11,999/- vide invoice dated 26.11.2016. In January, 2017, the complainant approached the OP no1 in connection issues in the product, specifically; the product had batter related issues. OP no.1 duly issued the job sheet and repaired the Product in working condition. The complainant again approached the OP no.1 and informed that the issues related to battery in the product are still persisting. OP no.1 advised the complainant to submit the product for necessary technical examination. However, complainant at all times refused to submit the product to OP no.1 and insisted on getting a replacement of the product. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 12.03.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone Redmi Note 3  on 26.11.2016 for Rs.11,999/- from OP no.1. It is alleged by the complainant that after two months of its purchase the battery problem was occurred. The complainant approached the OP no.1 on 28.1.2017 for rectification of the defect. OP no.1 replaced the battery and charged Rs.850/- from the complainant within warranty period but the same problem again occurred in the said mobile phone. The complainant again approached the OP no.1 for resolving the problem in the mobile set but at that time OP no.1 did not listen to him and did not rectify the defect. In support of his version the complainant has also filed his affidavit Ex.C1. The copy of the job sheet Ex.C3 clearly shows that the mobile set was having problems during warranty period. The contention of OPs is that complainant approached the OP no.1 firstly in the month of January, 2017 relating to battery issues in the mobile set in question, which was resolved. Complainant again approached the OP no.1 for the same problem at that time OP no.1 advised to complainant to submit his mobile set for rectification of the defect but complainant did not submit the same. The OPs have not produced any evidence of the concerned person that complainant has not submitted his mobile set. Moreover, the OPs charged Rs.850/- from the complainant for battery replacement, when the mobile was within warranty. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the mobile set in question of the complainant was defective and the grievance of the complainant has not been resolved by the OPs. Hence, the OPs are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same make and model and also to refund Rs.850/- to the complainant. However, it is hereby made clear that if the same make and model of the phone as purchased by the complainant is not available with the OPs then the OPs are liable to pay Rs.11,999/- the cost of the mobile set in question. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 12.04.2018

                                                                       

                                                                       President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Anil Sharma)

                            Member