Orissa

Cuttak

CC/152/2017

Sourav Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director,Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S S Chaini & associates

24 Aug 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.152/2017

Sourav Naik,

S/O:Parameswar Naik,

Residing at Plot No.2E/614,CDA,Sector-11,

Cuttack,Odisha.                                                                      ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        Xiaomi Technology India Private Ltd.

Represented through Director,8^th Floor,

Tower-1,Umiya Business Bay Marathahalli-Sarjapur,

Outer Ring Road,Bangalore,Karnataka,India,

Pin Code-560103.

 

2.         TVS Electronics Limited,represented through

Director,C/o: DHL,4^th Floor,Plot No.193-197 & 254-258,

137 & 248-249,Jigani Link Road,

Bommasandra Industrial Area,Banglore-562106.

 

3.          Sprimon Technologies, represented through

Mr. Trilochan Parida Votarika Complex,

Sakshi Handloom,Near ICICI Bank,

Budharaja,Sambalpur,Odisha-768004....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    12.12.2017

Date of Order:  24.08.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. S.S.Chaini,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P. No.1.    :            Mr. S.R.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps No.2 & 3:                  None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

            Case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant had purchased a mobile bearing IMEI No.865221032450443 through Mi.Com for a sum of Rs.12,999/-.  He had also purchased one MI protect and had paid a sum of Rs.749/- to that effect.  Three months after purchasing the said mobile, it developed certain problems for which the complainant had gone to the service centre of O.P No.3 for repairing the same.  The main board of the mobile set was changed and replaced but one month thereafter, the said mobile again stopped functioning.  Again the complainant had to go to the O.P No.3 but O.P No.3 demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for repairing the same.  Even though the complainant had shown the warranty documents, O.P No.3 had refused to repair the said mobile set which was within the warranty period.  Thus, the complainant has filed this case seeking direction to the O.Ps to exchange the said mobile free of cost and to get the compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- from the O.Ps and also to get a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his legal expenses.

            He has filed Xerox copy of documents as regards to the purchase of his mobile set.

2.         Out of the three O.Ps, O.Ps No.2 & 3 having not contested this case were set exparte vide order dt.31.1.19.  However O.P No.1 has contested this case and has filed written version.

            As per the written version of O.P No.1, he admits about the purchase of the mobile set of M.I brand namely Readme Note-4 by the complainant.  He also admits that on 21.7.17, the complainant had approached the authorised service centre of O.P.No.1 with issues related to the product.  After verifying the same, it could be ascertained by the service engineer of the service centre that the mobile set was facing issues related to auto restart problem.  Accordingly, the job sheet no.WXIN 1707210006709 was issued.  The same defect was repaired by the technicians of the authorised service centre of O.P No.1 and was thereafter returned to the complainant in proper working condition.  Hence it submitted by the O.P No.1 that there was no deficiency in service.  O.P No.1 in his written version has mentioned that Xiaomi Company provides free of charge repair and/or replacement services within the warranty period.  According to O.P No.1, the choice of repair or replacement is at the discretion of the Xiaomi Company.  In this aspect the O.P No.1 has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharati Knitting Vrs. DHL Worldwide(1996) 4 SCC 704.  He has also relied upon another case (Managing Person,Sri Sai Ram Motors Vs. MaggidiSrinivas, FA No.853 of 2012).  The O.P No.1 in his written version has mentioned about the decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vrs. B.C.Thakurdesai and Anr. II(1993) CPJ 225(NC) and also in the case of Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. and Anr. Vrs. M.Moosa 1994(3) CPR 395.  Thus, according to the O.P No.1 since because there was no deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed and the case be dismissed and to award cost of litigation to the O.Ps alongwith any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and that in the written version of O.P No.1, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the O.Ps were deficient in their service towards the complainant?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue No.ii

            Issue no.2 being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly, the complainant had purchased one Xiaomi mobile set for a consideration of Rs.12,999/- from the O.Ps alongwith MI protect worth of Rs.749/-.  Three months of after purchasing the said mobile set, it developed some problems for which it was repaired at the authorised service centre of the O.Ps but when again the mobile set stopped functioning, the complainant had taken it for repair to O.P No.3 but O.P No.3 had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the repairing charges.  It is the contention of the complainant that the problem was developed within the warranty period of the said mobile set for which O.P No.3 had levied a repairing charge of Rs.10,000/-.  The O.P No.1 through his written version has stated that when there was defect in the mobile set of the complainant, the same was repaired free of cost and was handed over to the complainant in a working condition.  He is silent about the subsequent defect of the said mobile phone of the complainant.  Rather, the O.P No.1 through his written version has specified about the decisions of the Hon’ble Superior Courts as regards to manufacturing defect and effect thereto.  But here in this case there is absolutely no complaint from the side of the complainant as regards to the manufacturing defect of the mobile set purchased by him.  Thus, the contention in this regard of O.P No.1 is of no use.  No customer would ever like to run to the service centre by wasting time and energy if there was no defect noticed in the purchased product.  Thus, the complainant had revisited the authorised service centre of O.P No.3 when the subsequent defect in his mobile set was noticed and when it had stopped functioning but O.P No.3 demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards its repairing cost.  The O.P No.1 is silent in this aspect.  Thus, it can well be concluded here that the O.Ps were undoubtedly deficient in their service to the consumer/customer who is the complainant in this case.  This issue is answered accordingly against all the O.Ps.

Issues no.i & iii

            When an amount of Rs.10,000/- was charged towards the subsequent repairing of the defective mobile set which was within the warranty period, the complainant has filed this case which is definitely maintainable.  Accordingly the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against the O.P No.1 and exparte against O.Ps no.2 & 3.  The O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant as purchased by him with the same model forthwith free of cost within a month hence.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay  compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards  the mental harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses as borne by him.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 23^rd day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                               Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                              Member.