Xolo/Lava International Ltd assured 1 year warranty for cellphone and six months for the battery, charger
District consumer disputes redressal forum, Chennai (north), has directed a cellphone manufacturing company, its service centre and retailer to pay Rs 60,000 to a person for selling a defective cellphone
Chennai: The district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chennai (north), has directed a cellphone manufacturing company, its service centre and retailer to pay Rs 60,000 to a person for selling a defective cellphone. Even after making 150 calls, the company. the service centre or the retailer rectified the defect. Petitioner K. Ponselvan of Thirumullaivoyal submitted that he purchased a cellphone — XOLO A 500 mobile — for Rs 6,700 from Univercell Telecommunications India Pvt Ltd, Ambattur, on June 23, 2013.
The Xolo/Lava International Ltd assured warranty for 1-year for cellphone and six months for the battery, charger and headset. The mobile started giving problems six months after it was bought.
Initially, he approached the manager, Univercell Telecommunications India Pvt Ltd, Ambattur, for servicing the mobile. However, as per the direction of the manager, he gave the mobile for servicing to Xolo -authorised customer service centre, Kilpauk, on September 16, 2013. The service centre returned the mobile to him on September 28 and within the next 30 days, the phone did not function.
Again, he gave it for repair on November 7, 2013. The service centre staff did not respond properly. Following this, he sent an email to Xolo customer care centre. Even after making 150 calls, he was unable to contact customer care staff - Senthilnathan and Hariharasubramani. Warranty for battery, charger and head set expired on December 23, 2013. On January 7, 2014, he sent representation to the managing director of the phone company in Noida. Even after assurance, the company had not redressed his grievance. He sent notice to them on June 23, 2013.
As there was no reply, he filed the petition before the forum seeking suitable compensation and refund for the mobile. Despite serving notices, nobody had responded. The bench, comprising president K. Jayabalan and member T. Kalaiyarasi, said the cellphone firm, service centre and retailer committed deficiency in service. The mobile was not handed over to him after rectifying the defect. Hence, complainant is entitled to a compensation of '53,000 for causing mental agony along with a refund of Rs 6,700.
Next Story
