Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/33

Navdeep Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

04 Sep 2019

ORDER

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :           33 of  2019

Date of Institution :      05.02.2019

Date of Decision :         4.09.2019

Navdeep Grover aged about 48 years, care of Pritam Lal and sons, Satta Bazar, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot (Punjab).

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Flipkart c/o Savadika Retail Pvt Ltd, 172, Deerwood, Nirwana Country, Sector 50, Gurugram (Haryana) through its MD.
2. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd, 8^th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay, Marathahalli-Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560103 through its MD.
3. Mi Service Centre, Bhai Kanayia Chowk, Near Kotwali, Faridkot through its Proprietor 151203.
4. Mi Service Centre, Shop No.22, Shop Complex, Bharat Nagar, Near Bibi Wala Chowk, Bathinda through its Proprietor 151001.

....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

             Sh Mandeep Chanana, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

              OP-1, OP-3 and OP-4 Exparte.

 

cc no.33 of 2019

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to them to replace the defective mobile with new one or to refund the cost of said mobile phone with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.8,000/-.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on assurance of OPs through their attractive advertisements, complainant purchased one mobile handset Make MI Model No.WD60427/MI from OP-1 through online mode against bill dated 25.02.2018 for Rs.10,999/- and complainant paid the amount of Rs.10,999/-in cash on receiving the delivery of said mobile phone at Faridkot. It is submitted that mobile phone in question bears warrantee for one year against all kind of risks covering damage to screen, theft, clarity in voice and internet etc, but since the day of purchase, this mobile is giving trouble and just after purchase, it was showing technical problems relating to voice and battery was blinking red while charging. Complainant approached OP-3 Service Centre of OP-2, who kept the mobile with him for two days and after two days, Op-3 returned the said defective mobile to complainant without making any repairs and asked him to approached OP-4 Service Centre of OP-2 at Bathinda. Complainant approached OP-4 who told him that battery of mobile is out of order and he changed the same, but despite changing the battery, mobile phone did not work properly. Thereafter, complainant again approached OP-4 and this time, Op-4 told him that mother board of mobile has been tampered and he cannot  remove the

cc no.33 of 2019

 

defect and also said that complainant cannot take the benefit of warrantee period.  complainant made several requests to OP-4 to repair his mobile and asserted that he has got checked his mobile phone from OP-3 and OP-4 only, but he did not pay any heed to his requests. Thereafter, complainant sent an e-mail to OPs in September, 2018, but nothing needful is done by OPs. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief.

3                                                   Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 11.02.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                              On receipt of notice, OP-2 filed reply taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and therefore, complaint in hand is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is asserted that complaint is filed without any technical support. It is further submitted that OP-2 is a renowned company incorporated under the Companies Act 2013 and is engaged in business of marketing, sale and service of mobile phones in India under the brands Mi and Xiaomi. It is averred that OP-3 is not their authorized service centre, rather it is a local shop where complainant submitted his handset for repair. Since the product was tampered and the motherboard of the product was damaged by local shop, the authorized service centre of OP-2 i.e OP-4 duly informed the complainant that unauthorized repair is not eligible for free of cost repair in warranty. Complaint filed by complainant is

cc no.33 of 2019

 

frivolous, concocted  and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed in limine. However, it is admitted by OP-2 that complainant purchased the said mobile from them on 4.03.2018 for Rs.10,999/-and also approached OP-4 their authorized service centre for repair purpose on 10.09.2018. Complainant explained OP-4 regarding issues related to the product and informed their technician that product was facing issues related to Power on in the product. Their service engineer duly recorded the issue in service and requested him to wait till completion of examination and examination of said mobile, it was ascertained that product has been tampered and asked him to pay repair costs since physical damage is not covered under standard warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product, but complainant refused to pay repair cost and then mobile was returned to him without repair. It is admitted that thereafter, complainant again approached OP-4 with request to replace the battery and since 6 months related battery of mobile were expired and therefore, battery was replaced on payment basis. It is further averred that mobile of complainant was rendered out of warranty due to unauthorized repair carried out by him from unauthorized centre by him, which is in violation of warranty terms and conditions and any repair carried out of warranty shall be separately quoted and shall be provided upon service free payment. Complainant was well aware that any Xiaomi product should only be repaired at authorized service centres of Xiaomi, but he himself got repaired his handset from a local unauthorized shop and violated the warranty terms and conditions and hence, is not eligible for any benefit provided under standard warranty terms and conditions. it is further denied that complainant sent any e-mail regarding defect in handset to them, rather he sent complaint on wrong e-mail

cc no.33 of 2019

 

address and therefore, they were not able to respond to message sent by him. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                        Registered cover containing copy of complaint alongwith summons and relevant documents was sent to OP-1 and 4, but same did not receive back in the Forum undelivered. Acknowledgment might have mislaid in transit. Op-1 and 4 might have been duly served, but nobody appeared in the Forum on date fixed either in person or through counsel on their behalf to contest the complaint filed against them and therefore vide order dated 30.04.2019, OP-1 and OP-4 were proceeded against exparte.

6                                               Notice of complaint alongwith complaint and relevant documents was sent to OP-3 through peon and as per office report, OP-3 was duly served, but despite repeated calls, no body made appearance in the Forum on behalf of OP-3 either in person or through counsel on date fixed and therefore, vide order dated 25.03.2019, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte.

7                                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1and documents Ex C-2 to C-3 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                                             In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sameer BS Rao Ex OP-2/1 and documents Ex OP-2/2 to OP-2/4 and then, closed the same.

cc no.-33 of 2019

9                                                                We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

10                                                  The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone worth Rs.10,999/-from OP-2 against a proper bill dated 25.02.2018 through OP-1 by online mode and made cash payment on receiving the said phone at Faridkot. Since the day of purchase, mobile phone in question started giving problem. It used to give problem regarding voice and power and its functioning was not proper. Complainant constantly approached and reported the entire matter to OPs at their service centre as well  as through e-mail. Complainant approached OP-3 service centre of OP-2, who could not remove the defect from said mobile and sent him to OP-4 at Bathinda. OP-4 changed the battery but defect was not removed. When complainant again approached OP-4, he denied to provide services on the ground that mother board mobile has been tampered and now it is beyond warranty period. Complainant made several requests to Ops to redress his grievance by replacing the said defective mobile phone, but OPs paid no heed to his genuine requests. He has prayed for accepting the complaint and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 3. Grievance of complainant is that since the day of purchase of mobile phone in question, he has been repeatedly approaching OPs with requests to repair or replace the said phone but all in vain as OPs are not paying any heed to listen to his genuine requests, which amounts to deficiency in service. To controvert the allegations of complainant, Ld Counsel for OP-2 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and stressed mainly on the point that complainant got repaired his mobile handset from OP-3, which is not their authorized service centre and by doing so, he has violated the terms and

cc no.-33 of 2019

conditions of warranty and now, he is not eligible to get benefit of free of cost repair. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

11                                       It is observed that there is no dispute regarding the fact that complainant purchased mobile handset in question from OP-1 through online mode for Rs.10,999/-, which was manufactured by OP-2 and there was one year warranty for any defect in the said mobile handset. It is also admitted by OP-2 that complainant approached their service centre at Bathinda/OP-4 for repair purpose. The only plea taken by OP-2 is that by getting repaired the said mobile phone from Op-3 which is not their authorized service centre and is a local repair shop, complainant has violated the terms and conditions of warranty. OP-3 tampered the mother board and thus, complainant is not entitled for free of cost warranty period services. It is transpired that by merely saying that complainant got repaired his mobile from Op-3, OP-2 cannot escape their liability to provide free of costs services within warranty period. There is no denial to the fact that battery of mobile was out of order. It is also admitted that there was problem of power in said phone as reported by OP-4. Complainant approached Ops several times to get the same repaired, but despite repeated requests, service centre of OPs did not provide effective repairs up to the satisfaction of complainant and thereafter, when complainant made requests to Ops through e-mail, Ops did not pay any heed to make any repairs to said mobile, which amounts to deficiency in service. Ops did not provide services to complainant on false grounds of violation of warranty terms and conditions, which is inappropriate on the part of OPs. OPs did not provide proper and sufficient services to complainant by doing effective repairs. OP-4 being authorized service care centre on behalf of OP-2 and Op-2 who is the

cc no.33 of 2019

manufacturer of said mobile phones did not bother to redress the grievance of complainant. OP-2 and 4 have neither provided requisite services by making effective repairs nor have bothered to replace the defective mobile set, which amounts to deficiency in service.

12                                         From the above discussion, we are of considered opinion that OPs No. 2 and 4 are liable for deficiency in service and have caused huge harassment and mental agony to complainant. Hence, present complaint is hereby allowed against them. OP-2 and OP-4 are directed to refund the cost price of handset with interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e 05.02.2019  till final realization. Complainant is also directed to return the old handset to OPs at the time of receiving the refund with interest from them. OP-2 and 4 are further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.1000/-for cost of litigation. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-1 and OP-3 stands hereby dismissed as they have no role in redressing the grievance of complainant. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum

Dated: 4.09.2019

 

                                                    (Param Pal Kaur)             (Ajit Aggarwal)

Member                          President