BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.508 of 2019
Date of Instt. 25.10.2019
Date of Decision: 24.05.2023
Rachita D/o H. K. Khare R/o N. B. 266, Lakshmi Pura, Jalandhar, Age 34 years.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Bunty Mobile World, 1st Floor, Upper Lovely Dhaba Bastian Road, Near Raja Hospital, Football Chowk, Jalandhar. Through its Manager/Representative/Chairman/MD/Owner/Prop.
2. M/s Xiaomi India c/o Ikewa Business Centre 8th Floor, Maya Business Bay Tower, 1, Partner, Cessna Business Park Kadubeesanahalli, Marathalli, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bangalore-560103, through its Manager/Representative/Owner.
3. Jay Pee Communication, 10- New Gopal Nagar, New Grain Market, Jalandhar through Manager/Representative/Owner.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
OPs No.1 & 3 exparte.
Sh. Bharat Mahajan, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is a consumer of the product sold by the OP No.3. OP No.1 is the service centre of the product manufactured by the OP No.2. The complainant purchased a mobile phone bearing Model No.Redmi Note 7 Pro 4/64, bearing IMEI No.1:865115043200732 from the OP No 3, after paying Rs.14,000/-, vide Invoice No. T/19-20/752 dated 19/06/2019. The said product was covered with a complete warranty of one year from the date of purchase. On 12/10/2019 complaint saw that mobile phone was ringing but nothing is showing on the screen and complaint is not able to attend the call as screen of the mobile is not working, the complainant asked his cousin to visit OP No.1 to rectify the problem then the cousin of the complainant approached the OP No.1 and explained the concern. Thereafter representative of the OP No.1 told that before issuing the job it is the policy of the company for the preliminary checking of the phone for the warranty policy. After 1 hour of the wait the representative of the OP No.1 said that product is under warranty and there is the problem with the display of the phone and it will be corrected within 2 hours and complainant need not to pay any charges as the phone is under warranty. On this complainant deposited the handset with the OP no 1 and a job sheet was issued to the complainant bearing number WXIN1910120008898 dated 12/10/2019. After 1 hour complainant received a call from the OP No.1 that there is moisture with the jack so the complainant needs to pay 5000/- for the repair. On this complainant said that earlier no such commitment was ever done by the representative of the OP No1. Complainant informed the matter to the higher official of the MI namely Vikram Kaushik on his mobile number 9815735522 but they demanded time to enquire the matter but no response was given by the senior representative of the MI. It is worthwhile to mention here that handset is still with the OP no 1 and complainant is not able to use the product even after spending a huge amount. At the time of taking the phone into the custody and while issuing job sheet preliminary checking was conducted no such things were ever explained and later on representative of the OP No.1 explaining the things on call. The OP indulged in this unfair trade practices and mal-practices and harassing his customers. The act and conduct of all the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund Rs.14,000/-. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.1 & 3 did not appear and ultimately, OPs No.1 & 3 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the OP No.1 is an authorized service centre of Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., who is OP No.2 in the present matter. It is further averred that the OP No. 2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and was incorporated in India on October 7, 2014 having its principal place of business, which is engaged in the marketing, sale and service inter alia of mobile phones in India under the brands "Mi" and "Xiaomi". It is further averred that the OP No.3 is seller of mobile handset purchased by the Complainant. The Complainant (Ms. Rachita) has allegedly purchased a Product sold under the Mi brand - namely, the Redmi Note 7 Pro on June 19, 2019. The Product allegedly sold to the Complainant has IMEI No. 865115043200732. All Mi and Xiaomi brand mobile phones sold within India are sold under a standard set of warranty terms. Said warranty terms are the specific and limited warranty terms offered in connection with all Mi and Xiaomi brand phones sold within India, including the Product purchased by and delivered to the Complainant. It is further averred that on October 12, 2019 one Mr. Rajat, who as per the complaint is Complainant's cousin approached the authorized service centre of the Respondent No.2 with issues related to the Product. Mr. Rajat informed the technician of the authorized service centre of OP No. 2 that the Product was facing issue related to ‘Display Black Screen’ in the Product. After examining the Product for defects, it was ascertained that the Product has suffered liquid damage as there was water log and water marks on the main board of the Product. The technicians of the authorised service centre of OP No.2 duly informed Mr. Rajat about the liquid damage in Complainant's Product and also requested Mr. Rajat to pay repair costs in accordance with the charges which has been enumerated at Respondent No. 2's Website. OP No.2 respectfully submits that the issue of liquid damage in the handset was also duly explained to the Complainant (Ms. Rachita) over phone. However, the Complainant did not agree to pay repair cost or collect the product. Later on, as a goodwill gesture and after getting approval from OP No.2 the service centre offered 40 % discount on repair cost. However, the Complainant refused to accept the offer made by service centre of OP No.2. This shows the mala fide intention of the Complainant to gain undue advantages. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the mobile by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The complainant has proved that he had purchased mobile phone bearing model No.Redmi Note 7 Pro 4/64 from OP No.3 after paying Rs.14,000/-, vide Invoice dated 19.06.2019. The invoice has been proved as Ex.C-1. The complainant has alleged that on 12.10.2019, he found that the mobile phone was ringing, but nothing is showing on the screen. The screen was blank. He approached the OP No.1. He was told that there is a problem with the display, so it will take two hours to correct the default. Since, the mobile phone was under warranty, therefore no charges are to be paid. He has proved on record the job sheet Ex.C-2. Perusal of this job sheet shows that the fault found was display black screen and on the product itself there was a scratch on screen with minor dents. Service terms and conditions have also been mentioned on Ex.C-2. The grudge of the complainant is that the OP demanded Rs.5000/- for the repair alleging that there is a moisture with the jack, so, the customer has to pay Rs.5000/-. This demand has been alleged to be deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs since, the mobile was under warranty.
7. The OPs on the other hand has alleged that there was a liquid damage in the mobile as per the service report, therefore the terms and conditions of warranty are not applicable to the damages caused by the human one. The OPs are liable for any manufacturing defect. The OPs have proved on record the terms and conditions of warranty Ex.RA and RB, photographs of the mobile Ex.RC to show that there was a moisture and water damage. The service record has been proved as Ex.RD. The complainant has alleged that the service record nowhere bears the signatures of service centre or the customer signature, therefore this cannot be relied upon.
8. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the mobile for Rs.14,000/- on 19.06.2019. The warranty of the mobile was till 20.06.2019. It is also proved on record that the complainant gave the mobile phone to the OP No.3/service centre for repair, wherein the fault description has been mentioned as display black screen and scratch on screen with minor dents. The complainant has not proved on record the service record to show what was the opinion of the OPs and what for Rs.5000/- as alleged was demanded by the OPs. He has alleged that he got a call that there is moisture in the mobile phone, but no document has been produced on record by the complainant. However, the OP has filed on record the service record Ex.RD, which shows that the fault description was as ‘display black screen’ and inspection remarks were mentioned as ‘water damage’ and the total amount of Rs.4423.82 has been shown for the part, which was damaged i.e. Cover Display Module. It is not disputed that the warranty was to be expired on 19.06.2020. As per the warranty Ex.RA and Ex.RB, the warranty for hardware was one year and six months was for original battery, charger and other accessories packaged with the product and the scope of warranty is labour and parts. The damage as per Ex.RD occurred to the mobile is not covered in the above said accessories. In the warranty, in point no.4, it has specifically been mentioned that any damage occurres in/on outer surface of the product including but not limited to cracks, dents or scratches on the exterior cases, screens, camera lenses, buttons and other attachments is not covered with the warranty. This water damage clearly shows that it was not a manufacturing defect rather the same has occurred due to the fact that the mobile had some water drops on it. It is not mentioned anywhere that the mobile handset was water proof, so damage can be occurred, if water falls on it or the said set falls in the water. The photographs have been proved on record by the OPs to show the moisture due to the water and damaged caused to the phone due to the water. The complainant has not produced on record any document to show that there was some manufacturing defect and the defect of moisture or water damage did not occur due to the fault of the complainant. The documents filed by the OP have not been rebutted by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
24.05.2023 Member Member President
