Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/123/2019

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dan Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Goyal Adv.

17 Sep 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	123 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	24.06.2019
Date of Decision	:	17.09.2020

Appeal arising out of order passed by the District Commission-1, U.T., Chandigarh in consumer complaint no.299 of 2018

Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., having its Office at:- Building Orchid, Block E, Embassy Tech Village, Marathahalli-Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru-Karnataka - 560 103

……Appellant/Opposite party No.2

V e r s u s

 

1. Dan Singh S/o Sh. Lakhu Ram, R/o H.No.546, Kumau Nagar, Nayagaon, Mohali-160103

…..Respondent no.1/Complainant

2. M/s Ashoka Enterprises, through its Partner/Proprietor,Shop No.4-5, Nayagaon, Mohali-160103

…..Respondent no.2/opposite party no.1

3. QDIGI Service Centre, through its Manager, SCO No.26, 1^st Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh-160020.

…..Respondent no.3/opposite party no.3

Present through Video Conferencing:-

 

                             Sh. Atul Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

                        None for respondent no.1

                             Respondents no.2 and 3 exparte vide order dated 14.02.2020

 

==============================================================

Appeal No.	:	37 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	06.02.2020
Date of Decision	:	17.09.2020

Appeal arising out of order passed by the District Commission-1, U.T., Chandigarh in consumer complaint no.130 of 2019

 

Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., having its Office at:- Building Orchid, Block E, Embassy Tech Village, Marathahalli-Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru-Karnataka - 560 103

……Appellant/Opposite party No.1

V e r s u s

 

1. Sunny Garg S/o Shri Parshotam Dass, R/o H.No.69, Bachittar Nagar, Model Town, Patiala, Punjab-147001

 …..Respondent no.1/Complainant no.1

2. Naveen Barhok, R/o H.No.3A, Aman City, Kharar, Punjab-140301. Alternate Address:- House No.2939/2940, Second Floor, Tata AIA Life Insurance, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh-160022. Email- naveen.barhok@gmail.com

…..Respondent no.2/Complainant no.2

3. QDIGI Services Limited, House No.2939/2940, Second Floor, Tata AIA Life Insurance, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh-160022.

..…..Respondent no.3

Present through Video Conferencing:-

 

                             Sh. Atul Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

                        None for respondent no.1

                             Sh.Naveen Barhok, respondent no.2 in person.

                             Respondent no.3 exparte vide order dated 17.06.2020

 

==============================================================

 

Appeal No.	:	307 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	17.12.2019
Date of Decision	:	17.09.2020

Appeal arising out of order passed by the District Commission-1, U.T., Chandigarh in consumer complaint no.615 of 2018

Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., having its Office at:- Building Orchid, Block E, Embassy Tech Village, Marathahalli-Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru-Karnataka - 560 103

……Appellant/Opposite party No.1

V e r s u s

 

1. Ajay Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma, R/o H.No. 2221/A, Sector 63, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent no.1/Complainant

2.  QDIGI Services Limited, through its Proprietor/Partner, SCO 2471-72, First Floor, Sector   22-C, Chandigarh – 160022..

…..Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2

3. Anmol Watches and Electronics, through its Manager, SCO 1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh – 160022.

…..Respondent no.3/opposite party no.3

Present through Video Conferencing:-

 

                             Sh. Atul Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

                        None for respondent no.1

                             Respondents no.2 and 3 exparte vide order dated 14.02.2020

 

BEFORE:           JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                    By this order, we propose to dispose of the afore-captioned appeals, as common questions of law and facts have originated therefrom.  All these appeals have been originated from the orders passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-1, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission) as mentioned above, vide which the consumer complaints filed by complainants were allowed and the appellant who is a manufacturer of the mobile sets in dispute alongwith service centre and dealer(s) were directed to refund the respective amounts charged towards the said mobile handsets; to pay compensation for deficiency in providing service, thereby causing mental agony and harassment and also litigation expenses, in the respective consumer complaints.

2.           Since the facts involved in the above appeals, by and large, are the same, and therefore, the same can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.
3.           In consumer complaint bearing No. 299 of 2018 out of which appeal no. 123 of 2019 has arisen, it was the case of respondent no.1/complainant that he had purchased a mobile handset make Redmi Note-5 Gold (4G+64GB) mobile handset from Opposite Party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 06.06.2018, for a sum of Rs.12,000/-, with one year warranty. On 08.06.2018 i.e. within two days of purchase of the said mobile handset, it was found that its volume button was not working. On 12.06.2018 it stopped working and when it was taken to service centre of the appellant i.e. to Qdigi Service Centre, on 14.06.2018, in the first instance it was assured that the same would be repaired free of cost, yet, thereafter, on 20.06.2018, the said service centre offered to repair the handset on chargeable basis i.e. on payment of Rs.10,000/-, stating that  the handset was out of warranty, as its main board & display battery were liquid logged and the back cover was bent.

                   On notice of the complaint, M/s Ashoka Enterprises/dealer from which the complainant had purchased the mobile handset,  in its written reply contended that  it was only a dealer and for any manufacturing defect therein, no liability can be fastened upon it.  On the other hand,  the appellant/ Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited in its written version stated that, on inspection of the mobile handset by the service centre, it was found that it had suffered physical damage, which was not covered  under standard warranty terms & conditions and the said fact was duly informed to respondent no.1/complainant. However, since the complainant refused to pay the repair costs, as such, the mobile handset was returned to him.

4.           In consumer complaint bearing No.130 of 2019 out of which appeal no. 37 of 2020 has arisen, it was the case of respondent no.1/complainant that on 29.05.2018, vide bill Annexure C-1, he had purchased one MI Hset-Note 5 64 GB mobile for Rs.12,000/-, carrying a warranty of one year, from M/s Electrowaves, Sirhind Road, Harman Colony, Indra Puri Colony, Harinder Nagar, Patiala (Authorized Dealer of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1), which was gifted to his friend (Complainant No.2). However, within 05 months of its purchase, on 08.10.2018, he started facing faced problem in AUX Point/ Headphone of the said mobile handset and thus, approached service centre of the appellant/MI Service Centre, which informed that its earphone jack is broken and needs repair/replacement. However, despite the fact that it was under warranty period, the said service centre gave estimate of Rs.6,134/- without any justification. Thereafter, once again on 14.11.2018, complainant no.2 faced another problem in the charging and battery back-up in the said mobile handset and approached the service centre of the appellant and this time also he was given estimate of Rs.6,429.82ps. stating that the said mobile handset is out of warranty.
5.           On the other hand, the appellant/Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited  in its written statement pleaded that on both the occasions i.e. 08.10.2018 and 14.11.2018, on receipt of the mobile handset, the same was examined for defects and after examination, it was found that it was suffering from physical damage, which was not covered under the standard warranty terms & conditions. The complainant however refused to pay the repair costs and the product was returned to him without repair.
6.           In consumer complaint bearing No. 615 of 2018 out of which appeal no. 307 of 2019 has arisen, it was the case of respondent no.1/complainant that the mobile handset purchased by him from respondent no.3/Anmol Watches and Electronics (P.) Ltd., on making payment of after paying Rs.13,590/- (Annexure C-1) on 22.12.2017, stopped functioning properly during the warranty period, yet, when the same was taken to the service centre/Qdigi Services Limited, for the period from February 2018 to  20.11.2018, for defect rectification,  it failed to rectify the same and on the other hand also refused to replace the same with a new handset.
7.           On the other hand, the appellant/opposite party no.1 filed its written statement and pleaded that on examining and reviewing the product by its authorized service center, it was found that the same is suffering from some software issue, which was duly repaired, as per the standard warranty conditions and  was returned to respondent no.1/complainant in a proper working condition .
8.           The contesting parties led evidence in support of their cases, before the District Commission.
9.           The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and going through the record of the cases, allowed the consumer complaints, ordering refund of the amount paid by the complainants towards the respective mobiles, alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
10.           We have heard the contesting parties and gone through the material available on the record.
11.           At the time of arguments, it has been vehemently contended by counsel for the appellant that though the defects in the respective mobiles, in question, occurred on account of negligence of the complainants, as they failed to take care of the same, as a result whereof, they suffered physical damage and not covered under the warranty terms and conditions, yet, the District Commission fell into a grave error, by allowing the consumer complaints, referred to above. 
12.           On the other hand, in Appeal no.37 of 2020, respondent no.2 in person contended that the mobile handset purchased by him, suffered from manufacturing defect, as such, the District Commission was right in ordering refund of amount paid, alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. 
13.           We have critically considered the rival contentions of the contesting parties and examined the material available on the record, in all the cases.
14.           First we will deal with appeal no.307 of 2019. It may be stated here that during arguments, counsel for the appellant while placing reliance on unsigned service record dated 21.11.2018 (Annexure A/2) bearing Sr. No.WXIN1811210001148, contended with vehemence that the mobile handset in question was brought to the service centre on 21.11.2018; that the said mobile handset was suffering from some software issue, which was rectified and the same was returned to the complainant on 21.11.2018.                               Whereas, on the other hand, the complainant before the District Commission had placed reliance on the service record dated 20.11.2018 (Annexure C-2) bearing same Sr. No.WXIN1811210001148, to prove his allegations that the mobile handset in dispute was handed over to the service centre on 20.11.2018 for the fault of battery backup but it failed to repair the same. It may be stated here that the document Annexure C-2 is signed by the representative of service centre of the appellant and also the complainant. However, we are surprised to note that the appellant has placed on record service record dated 21.11.2018 (Annexure A/2) with same serial no., yet, the same has been shown to be created on 21.11.2018 and delivery date thereupon has also been mentioned as 21.11.2018. We are of the considered opinion that two service records bearing same sr. nos. cannot be issued. It thus proves the malafide intentions of the appellant. It further proves that the appellant was  in a position to create false and fabricated documents, in order to defeat the genuine claim of their customers including the complainants. Our this view is further strengthen, as the service centre who has allegedly issued these service records, has preferred not to put in appearance, either before the District Commission or before this Commission, despite service, as a result it was proceeded against exparte. Thus, in the absence of any signatures on service record dated 21.11.2018 (Annexure A/2) bearing Sr. No.WXIN1811210001148, its genuineness is doubtful. 

                   Furthermore, in the face of willful absence of any of the representatives of the service centre before the District Commission and also this Commission, despite service, an adverse inference could very well be drawn that the allegations leveled by the complainant to the effect that defect in the mobile handset occurred in February 2018 itself and the same persisted till the date, when this complaint had been filed before the District Commission, but the service centre of the appellant failed to rectify the same, are correct, as the same went un-rebutted by the said service centre.  It was only the service centre, which could have rebutted the allegations leveled by the complainant, in a better way, to prove the case to the contrary but since admittedly it has preferred not to contest the case, now the appellant cannot take any benefit out of it.

15.           Now we will deal with appeal no.123 of 2019. In this case also, the claim of the complainant for replacement of defective mobile handset purchased by him, has been rejected by the opposite parties on the ground that  the said mobile handset suffered physical damage, as its outer cover was found bent, which fell in exclusion clause of warranty.  In this case, the service centre has issued the service record dated 20.06.2018 (Annexure C-2) stating therein that there was bent on back cover of the mobile handset, which amounts to physical damage. As such, while placing reliance on the contents of the said service record, the appellant before the District Commission had taken the main stand that since physical damage was caused to the mobile handset by the complainant, as such the company was not liable to repair the same free of cost or replace the same with a new one, irrespective of the fact that the defects occurred in the said mobile handset, during warranty period. However, in the rejoinder filed by the complainant to the reply filed by the appellant, it has been candidly stated by him that it was the service centre which had mishandled the mobile handset resulting into bent on its back cover and not by the complainant.  However, this assertion of the complainant also went unrebutted, as the service centre who has allegedly issued the service record and against which the complainant has leveled allegations aforesaid, has preferred not to put in appearance before the District Commission. Even before this Commission also, the said service centre did not put in appearance, despite service, as a result it was proceeded against exparte.

                   As such, in this case also, in the face of willful absence of service centre before the District Commission and also this Commission, an adverse inference could very well be drawn that the allegations leveled by the complainant to the effect that the mobile handset was mishandled by the service centre only and not by him, are correct, as the same also went un-rebutted. As stated above also, it was only the service centre, which could have rebutted the allegations leveled by the complainant, in a better way, to prove the case to the contrary but since admittedly it has preferred not to contest the case, now the appellant cannot take any benefit out of it. 

16.           Similarly, in appeal no.37 of 2020 also, the appellant has placed heavy reliance on the remarks mentioned in the service record sheet dated 08.10.2018 (Annexure A-2) to the effect that on inspection, earphone jack of the mobile handset was found broken and that since physical damage was caused to the mobile handset by the complainant, during warranty period, as such the company was not liable to repair the same free of cost or replace the same with a new one. However, in this case also, in the rejoinder filed by the complainant to the reply filed by the appellant, it has been candidly stated by him (complainant) that it was either of the fact that the earphone jack had broken while opening the mobile handset by the engineer of the service centre or they might have deliberately done so, to defeat his claim. The said allegations leveled by the complainant have also gone unrebutted, as the service centre who has issued the said service record aforesaid, has preferred not to put in appearance, either before the District Commission or before this Commission, despite service, as a result it was proceeded against exparte. In our considered opinion, the service centre should have definitely put in appearance to counter the allegations leveled by the complainant in his complaint and the rejoinder but it is not so in the present case also, meaning thereby that the said service centre has nothing to say in its defence.

                   As such, in this case also, in the face of willful absence of service centre before the District Commission and also this Commission, an adverse inference could very well be drawn that the allegations leveled by the complainant to the effect that the mobile handset was mishandled by the service centre only and not by him, resulting into damage to the jack of the earphone are correct, as the same went un-rebutted by the service centre.

17.           The complainants in the respective cases aforesaid had purchased the mobile handsets, to make their life easy but they could not enjoy the use thereof, as defects arose therein during the warranty period. On the other hand, salt was added to their miseries when despite the fact that defects in the said mobile handsets occurred during the warranty period neither the dealer nor the service centre nor the manufacturer came forward to redress their grievance and on the other hand, they tried to manipulate the situation on vague grounds and failed to honour the warranty commitments, which act amounts to deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice. It has been proved on record that the appellant was in a position to create a fabricated record sheets and could write thereon whatever they want, favouring them, just with a view to defeat the genuine claims of their customers. This act of the appellant needs to be deprecated.  The District Commission was therefore right in ordering refund of the amount paid by the respective complainants towards purchase of the mobile handsets alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.  
18.           For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered opinion that these appeals are devoid of merit and the same deserve dismissal. The impugned orders did not suffer any illegality or infirmity and the same does not require interference by this Commission. Thus, the same stands upheld. Resultantly, these appeals are hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. 
19.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and one copy thereof be placed in the connected cases, referred to above.
20.           The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

17.09.2020

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Rg.