Punjab

Patiala

CC/22/123

Mukesh Nabha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Head Office Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Mukesh Nabha

22 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/123/2022
Date of Institution	:	29.4.2022
Date of Decision	:	22.3.2023

 

Mukesh Nabh S/o Sh.Jagan Nath, Resident of House No.74-A, Street No.1, Jujhar Nagar, Patiala-147001, District Patiala, Punjab.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Head Office:Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, Orchid (Block E), Ground Floor to 4^th Floor, Embassy Tech Village,Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Karnataka, India- 560103.
2. Xiaomi Service Center, Mobile Zone, SCO 33A,City Center,                                                                                             Patiala,147001,Punjab.
3. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited C/o Delhivery Private Limited Sy.No.95/2, 4-25,38,39,5,4 Hobli Pura , Anagondanhalli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural-562114 Karnataka (29).

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi, Member        

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Mukesh Nabh, complainant in person.

                             Sh.Vikas Mittal, counsel for OP No.1.

                             OPs No.2&3 ex-parte.                     

 

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Mukesh Nabh(hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Xiaomi  Technology India Private Limited(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:

That he placed an order for purchase of Redmi note 11s from OP No.1 on 21.2.2022 via order id 5220221139550664 & transaction id 14743195067.The payment was done online through bank of Baroda credit card on 21.2.2022 with ref. No.T11560 to avail Rs.1000/- instant cash back. A damaged product i.e. mobile phone, in a sealed box was delivered to complainant on 23.2.2022. Complainant also observed that edges of screen i.e. bezels of screen were not smooth. There were also few deep scratches. Complainant raised issue within hours of receipt of damaged product on 23.2.2022 to OP No.1 via e-mail, for replacement, who demanded pictures of the phone alongwith box which were provided. Complainant made various calls to all customer care numbers but all in vain. On 28.2.2022 complainant received an email from OP No.1 having declining the replacement request. Complainant again raised issue to the grievance cell and nodal cell. On 3.3.2022, complainant received a call from OP No.1 to visit MI service centre i.e. OP No.2 for replacement of phone. Complainant deposited the set with OP No.2, who also acknowledged defects in phone. Complainant informed the same to grievance cell via email. On 7.3.2022 complainant was shocked after receiving text message from OP No.1 that hand set is out of warranty and complainant has to pay for the damage. Complainant visited OP No.2 to collect the handset. OP No. 2 gave the reason of refusal that it entertain the replacement only for 7 days and also the un-boxing video is not correct and complete, whereas replacement policy mentioned on the online site of OP No.1 is 10 working days. Thus, the delay is on the part of OP No.1.Complainant again raised issue to CEO India as well as CEO Global but no response was received. There is thus clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OPs, which not only caused monetary loss but complainant was also suffered from mental agony and harassment. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of complaint. 

3.           Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement. Prop. of OP No.2 appeared only for one time. Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte. Notice issued to OP No.3 through registered post neither received back unserved nor anyone appeared on its behalf. Accordingly, OP No.3 was also proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In the written statement filed by OP No.1 it raised various preliminary objections. In the pleadings, it is admitted that OP No.1 is a manufacturing company and complainant has purchased a mobile hand set sold under Redmi brand, on 23.2.2022 for Rs.17499/- bearing IMEI No.867457050850738.It is alleged that handset was damaged due to mishandling at the hands of complainant.
5. On merits, it is submitted that all Xiaomi, Mi, Poco and Redmi come with a limited warranty, which in certain events or on the occurrence of which, gets invalidated. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 or any of its agents as the complainant approached the authorized service centre of OP Nol.1 once wherein, after examining and reviewing the product, the complainant was duly informed by the authorized service centre of OP no.1 that the product has suffered damage at the hands of complainant, in technical term which is called Customer induced/Physical damage  and requested to pay the estimated costs for repair since any kind of customer induced/physical damage is not covered under the warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product. The complainant, however refused to pay the repair costs and the product was duly returned to him without repair. After denying all other averments, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
6. To prove his case, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA alongwith documents, Exs.C1 to C40 and closed the evidence.
7. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Amandeep, Engineer at Mobile zone, service provider of Xiaomi Tech.India P. Ltd. alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed evidence.
8. We have heard the complainant, ld. counsel for OP No.1 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The complainant placed an order for purchase of mobile phone redmi note 11S from the OPs vide order dated 21.2.2022, Ex.C1. Payment of Rs.17499/- was made to the OPs through online as is evident from the bank statement, Ex.C2.Copy of receipt voucher issued by the OPs for  the same is Ex.C3.Mobile phone was delivered to the complainant on 23.2.2022 in a sealed box. The complainant has alleged that a damaged mobile hand set was supplied to him as the edges of the screen were not smooth and rough surface could be felt with bare hands. The matter was reported to the OPs immediately on the same day via email dated 23.2.2022 at 11.27 hours, copy of which is Ex.C4.The pictures of the mobile phone alongwith opening of box containing the mobile phone were provided to the OPs as per their demand, which is Ex.C5. The matter was taken up repeatedly with the OPs for replacement of the defective mobile phone through emails and phone calls but his request was turned down by the OPs  through email dated 28.2.2022 on the ground that the product was delivered in intact condition, copy of which is Ex.C16.The matter was again taken up with the OPs through e-mail,Ex.C20 and the complainant was advised to visit the service centre of the OPs As per the service job sheet, Ex.C23, prepared by the OPs the hand set was diagnosed  with front cover deformation or scratched. A message was then received by the complainant on 5.3.2022, Ex.C25 and emails Exs.C26 & C27, declaring that the hand set is out of warranty and an estimate of Rs.6016.82 was given by the OPs to repair the damaged phone, as per job sheet, Ex.C28, even though as per the policy of OPs, Ex.C29, replacement is admissible within 10 working days on the product sold by the OPs. The delay if any, was on the part of the OPs themselves as the matter was immediately reported to them on receipt of defective mobile hand set by the complainant. The matter was repeatedly taken up with the OPs through e-mail, Exs.C30 to 38. However, no fruitful purpose was served.
10. OP No.1 in its written statement has not denied any of the averments made by the complainant but have argued that the mobile hand set was damaged due to mis-handling at the hands of the complainant meaning thereby that it was a customer induced physical damage, for which OPs are not responsible.
11. From the above discussion, we find that the phone was delivered to the complainant on 23.2.2022 and the matter regarding the defects was immediately brought to the notice of the OPs through e-mails on 23.2.2022 itself at 11.27 P.M. regarding scratches on the edges of the screen. The said defects were confirmed by the service centre of the OPs. Thus, we are of the opinion that the defective hand set was supplied to the complainant and the arguments of the OPs that it was a complainant’s induced damage is not justified as the matter was immediately brought to their notice. Even the hand set was never used by the complainant. The OPs have further escalated misery of the complainant on asking him to deposit Rs.6016.82 for the repair of the said mobile hand set, vide service record dated 4.3.2022 ,Ex.C28 and declaring the hand set in question out of warranty clause.

We, therefore, partly allow the complaint and direct the OPs as follows:

To refund the amount of Rs.17499/- paid by the complainant for the purchase of the said hand set alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of purchase i.e.21.2.2022 till realization within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall pay interest @9% per annum on the said amount till realization.

To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation which is inclusive of costs on account of mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant, within the prescribed period.

12. The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum for long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President