DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 16th day of February 2021
Present: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member(President I/c)
: Smt.Vidya.A, Member Date of Filing: 21/02/2019
CC /44/2019
Vineeth Kumar.B,
S/o.Balan.V.R, - Complainant
Vadakkeveedu,
Thenur(PO),
Palakkad – 678 616.
(By Party in Person Only)
V/s
1. Benny.C.A,
Aagnus Mobile Care,
First Floor, Adam Complex, - Opposite parties
Shoranur Road, Nurani,
Palakkad – 678 612.
2. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited,
Building Orchid, Block E,
Empassy Tech Village, Marathahalli –
Sarjapur Outer Ring Road,
Devarabisanahalli,
Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 103.
(By Adv.N.D.Rajesh and Shiju Kuriakose for Opp.Party 2)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya.A, Member
Brief facts of the complaint
The complainant purchased a mobile phone “Redmi Note 5 Pro” manufactured by Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.(OP2) from the online e-commerce site Flipkart on 11/08/2018 with IMEI numbers 866700044020095 and 866700044020095. As per the invoice, the mobile has a warranty for one year. On 29/01/2019, the complainant noticed a yellow patch inside the top left portion of the mobile screen. He then contacted the customer support team over telephone and as per their advice, he visited the nearest authorized service centre of Xiaomi(ie. OP1). Even before the inspection of the mobile phone by a technician, the staff of the service centre told him that the problem may be due to the presence of liquid in the phone and it cannot be repaired under warranty. After inspection, the technician of the service centre also denied the service saying the same reason. The complainant registered a complaint through company’s website, but he did not get any positive response from the company. According to the complainant, the problem is due to the poor quality of the LCD display used in the phone and glue used inside the screen and hence it is manufacturing defect. As per the company’s warranty terms and conditions, the internal damage should be repaired under warranty. He used the mobile only for six months and the irresponsible response from the company and the service centre had caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed for getting an order directing the opposite parties to service it or replace with a new one of the same brand and model and to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by him.
Complaint admitted and notice issued to both opposite parties. Eventhough notice was served, 1st opposite party did not appear before the Forum, so 1st opposite party’s name called absent and set ex-parte. 2nd opposite party entered appearance and filed their version.
The main contentions raised by 2nd opposite party in their version:
-
The warranty exclusions and the clear and unambiguous precedents in this regard clearly establishes that the liquid/customer induced damage is clearly excluded from the applicable warranty terms and the complaint is liable to dismissed on this ground alone. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party. The complainant had damaged the product in a manner which is not covered by the warranty and so he is not entitled to recover any costs from the opposite party. The complainant did not produce any evidence to show that alleged damage in the product is due to the manufacturing defect in the product and not because of use or mishandling by the complainant. In view of the established position, even if the complainant is entitled to a remedy in connection with defects in the product such remedy would be limited to repair or replacement of the defective part of the product and not replacement or refund associated with the entire product.
Hence considering the submissions of the 2nd opposite party, the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to them.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents. Exts.A1 to A4 marked. Ext.A5 & A6 (marked with objection) and produced the mobile phone which is marked as MO1. Complainant filed IA 234/19 for appointment of an Expert Commissioner to examine the phone. The application was allowed and the Expert Commissioner examined the phone and filed report and the report Ext.C1 is marked(subject to proof). 2nd opposite party also filed chief affidavit and no exhibits were marked from their side. No witness was examined from both sides.
Main issues arising for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what is the relief as to cost/Compensation?
Issues 1&2
Heard.
We perused the affidavits and documents filed by both parties. From Ext.A1 Tax invoice dated 11/08/2018, it is clear that the complainant purchased a mobile “Redmi Note 5 Pro” (Black, 64GB) through the online platform Flipkart for Rs.14,999/-.
As per the complaint, on 29/01/2019, the complainant noticed a yellow patch inside the top left portion of the mobile screen. According to him, the problem is of poor quality of LCD display used in the phone. It is a problem with the glue used inside the screen and hence it is a manufacturing defect. The mobile is under warranty for a period of one year and as per the company’s warranty terms and conditions, the internal damage should be repaired under warranty.
The main contentions raised by the 2nd opposite party is that the yellow colored patch on the edge of its display was caused due to the liquid exposure/customer induced damage and it is not covered under the standard warranty conditions applicable to the product. This was duly informed to the complainant by the technician of the authorized service centre and requested him to pay the repair cost as it was not covered under warranty.
Complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product and so the onus to prove the manufacturing defect lies on the complainant.
In order to prove this, the complainant filed and IA 234/19 for the appointment of any expert commissioner to examine the phone. The application was allowed and the Assistant Engineer, PWD Electronic Section, Palakkad was appointed as the Commissioner and he filed a detailed report which is marked as Ext.C1(subject to proof). The Expert Commissioner in his report has pointed out that “the small phone/gadgets like electronic devices that were built after 2006 have built-in Liquid Contact Indicators(LCI) that will show whether the device has been in contact with water or liquid containing water. The LCI is a small indicator that turns from white into another colour, typically red after contact with water. Those indicators are small stickers that are placed in several points within electronic devices like laptops and smart phones. The indicators colour is normally white or silver, but when it contacts water or a liquid containing water, it will turn fully red”. He further pointed that by checking the colour of LCI, we can easily determine whether the phone is exposed to water or any liquid containing water”.
As per the Expert Commissioner “on detailed inspection, it is observed that the Liquid Contact Indicator(LCI) in the mobile phone is not triggered ie. found in white colour itself. We could not find other symptoms of liquid presence like scar, rust or any other mechanical problem anywhere in the internal parts of the mobile phone”.
Ext.C1 report is marked ‘subject to proof’. But in this case, the opposite party did not file any objection to the commission report even though several postings were given. Further the Commissioner examined the mobile phone in the presence of both parties.
The Expert Commissioner appointed is a qualified person(Assistant Engineer, PWD Electronic Section, Palakkad) and we are of the view that nothing is there to discredit the report submitted by him. Further the 2nd opposite party had not filed any objection to the Commission Report eventhough several chances were given. They have not adduced any evidence to show that the defect in the phone occurred due to the mishandling by the complainant. They have not even taken steps for cross examining the complainant. Hence we come to the conclusion that the defect in the display part of the phone is not due to the liquid presence/customer induced as alleged by the 2nd opposite party; but it is a manufacturing defect.
When the newly purchased mobile phone became defective within six months of its purchase, the complainant would have definitely suffered mental agony for which the opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed.
We direct the opposite parties joint and severally, to replace the phone with a new one of the same brand and specification or refund the amount of Rs.14,999/-(Rupees Fourteen thousand Nine hundred and Ninety Nine only) to the complainant. Once the order is executed, the opposite parties can collect the defective phone from the Commission. We further direct both opposite parties to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.6,000/-(Rupees Six thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant.
The order shall be executed within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise complainant is also entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount due to them from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of February 2021.
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member(President I/c)
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 –Tax invoice issued by opposite party dated 11/08/2018
Ext.A2 – Service Record issued by 1st opposite party dated 29/01/2019
Ext.A3 – Warranty card of the mobile phone
Ext.A4 – Email sent by 2nd opposite party to the complainant dated 27/2/2019.
Ext.A5 – Printout of image showing the damaged mobile phone.(subject to objection)
Ext.A6 – Printout of image showing the damaged mobile phone.(subject to objection)
Ext.C1 – Commission Report dated 31/10/2019(subject to proof)
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite Party
NIL
Witness examined on the side of complainant
NIL
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
NIL
Cost : NIL
