DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/222

Date of Institution   : 27.03.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision    : 06.07.2022

Vishal Sanan son of Sh. Ravi Kumar resident of H.No. 18, Professor Colony, Opposite OCM Mill, Amritsar.    

                …Complainant Versus

1.AHD Communication, 1st Floor, Bhai Ghaniyan Mkt., Near Bus Stand, G.T. Road, Amritsar, MI(Xiaomi) Authorized Service Centre, Punjab-143001 through its Proprietor Mr. Deepak.

2.Savadika Retail Private Limited, 172, Deerwood, Nirvana Country, Sesctor 50 Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

3.Xiaomi (MI) Technology India Private Limited Head Office, 8th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay Marathahalli-Sarjapur, outer Rind Road, Banglore 560103, Karnataka, India.    

              …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 11, 12 and 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As Amended Upto Date.

Present: Sh. B.S. Rajput Adv counsel for complainant.

O.Ps-1 & 2 exparte.

Sh. Munish Menon Adv counsel for opposite party No. 3.

 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member 

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against AHD Communication & others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one phone MI A1-IN-4+64G Black, online from the opposite party No. 2 vide invoice No. FABBA21800174518 dated 31.10.2017 for an amount of Rs. 14,999/-. It is alleged that at the time of purchase of above mentioned mobile set opposite parties No. 2 & 3 assured the complainant that the mobile set is very good and they will give the trouble free service to the complainant as per specification given on the website and they also issued one year warranty from 31.10.2017 to 30.10.2018. It is alleged that in the month of February 2018 the mobile set started giving various troubles including unable to save mobile contact number as well as mobile hanging problem and working of mobile is too much slow, as such the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 on 6.2.2018 and requested to rectify the defects during warranty period, but the opposite party after checking the mobile set issued service order slip to the complainant but unable to sort out the above mentioned problems. The complainant again approached the opposite party No. 2 to sort out the above said problems and opposite party again issued service order slip dated 7.2.2018 but unable to sort out the problems/defects and gave back the mobile set in same conditions. It is further alleged that the complainant requested the opposite party No. 2 to replace the above said mobile set but the opposite party No. 2 refused to do the same and assured the complainant that he will talk to the head office of Xioami and retailer about the above said problems of mobile set. The complainant again approached the opposite party No. 2 on 9.2.2018 and deposited the mobile set and opposite party No. 2 again issued service order slip dated 9.2.2018 to the complainant but they failed to sort out the problems/defects. The above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To replace the mobile set or in alternative pay Rs. 1500/- which was paid by the complainant to the opposite party No. 2 through Flipkart at the time of purchase of the set. 

ii) To pay Rs. 30,000/-  as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- on account of litigation expenses.    

3. Notice were sent to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 but they failed to appear and were proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 11.5.2018 and 21.5.2018 due to non appearance. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 3 appeared and filed written version. It is alleged in the written version that the complainant purchased a phone sold under the Mi brand namely, MI AI mobile phone for Rs. 14,999/- and the same was delivered to the complainant has IMEI No. 866409036721328. It is further alleged that on 2.2.2018 the complainant approached the authorized service centre with issues related to the Product and on examination by the service engineer it was ascertained that the product was facing “Auto power off”. The service engineer duly recorded the issue in service job sheet No. WXIN1802020005156 and provided the job sheet to the complainant. On 6.2.2018 the complainant again approached the authorized service centre of opposite party No. 3 with issues related to the product and on examination by the service engineer, it was ascertained that the product was facing issue related to “SD Card automatically removed” in the product. The service engineer duly recorded the issue in service job sheet No. WXIN1802060000988 and provided the job sheet to the complainant. It is further alleged that on 8.2.2018 the complainant again approached the authorized service centre of opposite party No. 3 with issues related to the product and on examination by the service engineer, it was ascertained that the product was facing issue related to “other Apps faults” in the product. The service engineer duly recorded the issue in service job sheet No. WXIN1802070001287 and provided the job sheet to the complainant. The defects to “other Apps faults” in the product were duly repaired by the technicians of the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 3 as per standard warranty conditions and the product was returned to the complainant in proper working condition. It is further submitted that the complainant has not produced any evidence admissible or otherwise to prove manufacturing defects in the product. Mere allegations and unsupported averments cannot be held against the opposite party No. 3 and the complainant is required to prove manufacturing defects in the product. All other allegations are denied by the opposite party No. 3 and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

5. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of the invoice dated 31.10.2017 Ex.C-1, copy of the service order Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence. 

6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. B.S. Rao Ex.O.P3/1, copy of terms and conditions of warranty Ex.O.P3/2, copy of the terms and conditions of warranty published online Ex.O.P3/3, copy of service job order dated 2.2.2018 Ex.O.P3/4, copy of service job order dated 6.2.2018 Ex.O.P3/5, copy of service job order dated 7.2.2018 Ex.O.P3/6 and closed the evidence. 

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. 

8. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased one phone MI A1-IN-4+64G Black, online from the opposite party No. 2 vide invoice No. FABBA21800174518 dated 31.10.2017 for an amount of Rs. 14,999/-. It is also not disputed that the above said mobile set was having one year warranty from 31.10.2017 to 30.10.2018. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that in the month of February 2018 the mobile set started giving various troubles including unable to save mobile contact number as well as mobile hanging problem and working of mobile is too much slow and the complainant number of times approached the opposite party No. 2 to rectify the defects during warranty period and every time opposite party after checking the mobile set issued service order slip to the complainant but unable to sort out the above mentioned problems. Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that the mobile set is having manufacturing defect and the same needs to be replaced with new one.

9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 3 argued that that on 2.2.2018 the complainant approached the authorized service centre with issues related to the Product and on checking the service engineer found that the product was facing “Auto power off” and the same was duly recorded by the service engineer in job sheet Ex.O.P3/4. It is further argued that the complainant on 6.2.2018 again approached the authorized service centre of opposite party No. 3 with issues related to the product and on examination by the service engineer, it was found that the product was facing issue related to “SD Card automatically removed” in the product and the same was duly recorded in service job sheet Ex.O.P3/5. The complainant again on 8.2.2018 approached the authorized service centre of opposite party No. 3 with issues related to the product and on examination by the service engineer, it was found that the product was facing issue related to “other Apps faults” in the product and the same was again duly recorded in service job sheet Ex.O.P3/6. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 argued that the defects to “other Apps faults” in the product were duly repaired by the technicians of the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 3 as per standard warranty conditions and the product was returned to the complainant in proper working condition. The warranty provided by the company is as per the terms and conditions. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 3 further argued that the complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove manufacturing defects in the product.  

10. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has relied upon the judgments of The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled Pawan Kumar Versus M/s Nissan Motors India Private Limited bearing Revision Petition No. 2276 of 2017 decided on 3.1.2018 vide which it is held that “Petitioner has failed to place on record any expert opinion regarding alleged manufacturing defect in his vehicle. Deficiency not proved.”

11. Further the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled Sanjay Singh Versus Dabloo Bhagat bearing Revision Petition No. 2840 of 2016 decided on 11.5.2018 vide which the Hon'ble Commission held that “The complainant failed to place on record any technical/expert report to support his allegation that the tractor in question was defective.”

Both these citations are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present complaint as in the present case also the complainant has not filed any expert report, so failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the mobile set. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

12. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the  present complaint and same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.  

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       6th Day of July, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member