DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/26/2023
Date of Institution: 03.03.2023
Date of Decision: 01.07.2024
Karamjit Singh aged about 42 years son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of Village Daraj, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Lovely Enterprises, Malout Road, Mandi Killianwali-151211, District Sri Mukatsar Sahib through its Authorized Signatory (Mobile No. 98763-20771).
2. Xioami Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Building Orchid, Block E, Embassy Tech, Village Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru 560103 through its Managing Director.
3. Raju Mobile Care, Backside Azad Medical Hall, Near Balmiki Chowk, New Bus Stand Road, Barnala, District Barnala, through its Manager (Authorized Service Centre of O.P No. 2).
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. P.S. Kaushal Adv counsel for complainant.
Ms. Hardesh Rehal Adv counsel for opposite party No. 2.
Opposite parties No. 1 & 3 exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Lovely Enterprises, Malout Road, Mandi Killianwali-151211, District Sri Mukatsar Sahib through its Authorized Signatory & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one MI LED TV 55 INCH (25622/133100009701) for an amount of Rs. 38,000/- from opposite party No. 1 vide invoice No. 934 dated 5.3.2022 who represented himself the authorized dealer of opposite party No. 2 and at the time of selling the above said LED TV, the complainant was assured by the opposite party No. 1 vide warranty card dated 5.3.2022 that the LED TV has one year warranty and 1+1 year extended warranty on display Panel. It is further alleged that the above said LED TV stopped working in the month of December 2022, as such the complainant booked a complaint which got Token No. M5440448 and marked to opposite party No. 3 and they visited the house of the complainant on 26.12.2022 and after checking the LED TV of complainant opposite party No. 3 refused to repair the LED TV of complainant by saying that it’s warranty has expired. The above said act of the opposite parties falls in the definition of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and due to which the complainant suffered physical pain, mental agony and financial loss. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite parties may be directed to either to replace/repair of complainant’s LED TV or to pay amount of Rs. 38,000/- amount of LED TV.
- To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental harassment to the complainant.
- Further, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The opposite parties No. 1 & 3 were proceeded again exparte vide order dated 18.4.2023 due to non appearance.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary submissions interalia on the grounds that the opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturing company (Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited). The present complaint is false, frivolous and filed to unnecessarily harass the opposite party No. 2 and extort benefits from the opposite party No. 2. It is further alleged that the complainant has purchased a Television sold under the MI brand namely the MI LED TV on March 5, 2022 for INR 38,000/- and the activation of the product as per record and database is June 15, 2021. The complainant has produced a bill alleging that the product was sold on March 5, 2022. The complainant raised a complaint at the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 2 for the first time on December 28, 2022 and the opposite party No. 2 checked the database and it was ascertained that the product was out of warranty, since the product activation was June 15, 2021 therefore the warranty period expired on June 15, 2022 as can be ascertained from the jobsheet-TVIN2212280000573. Therefore, the technician of the authorized service centre of opposite party No. 2 was not able to repair the product for free of cost. The complainant has not presented any technical evidence by way of technical report from a reputed technical laboratory in support of his allegations that the product is suffering from manufacturing defect.
5. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant filed the false and frivolous complaint and has been filed to harass the opposite party No. 2. Other than a mere allegation the complainant has not in any way proved or demonstrated that the product is presently suffering from a defect and such defect is a manufacturing defect. It is further submitted that all Xiaomi, Mi, Poco and Redmi comes with a limited warranty, which in certain events or on the occurrence of which gets invalidated. This limited warranty shall apply to Xiaomi products For handset, air purifier and accessory defects under normal use circumstances and at the discretion of company, Xiaomi shall provide free of charge repair and/or replacement services within the warranty period. The Limited Warranty starts from the day customer receives the product, limited to 10 days from the date of invoice. All other allegations are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
6. Ld. Counsel for complainant on 21.12.2023 suffered the statement that I do not want to file any rejoinder against the written version of opposite party.
7. To prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, copy of warranty card Ex.C-2, copy of invoice Ex.C-3, copy of Watsapp of Token Number Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
8. To rebut the case the opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sameer BS Rao Ex.O.P2/1, copy of service record Ex.O.P2/2 (containing 2 pages), copy of warranty policy Ex.O.P2/3, copy of warranty statement Ex.O.P2/4 and affidavit of Hitesh Kumar Ex.O.P2/5 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by opposite party No. 2.
10. The complainant alleged in the complaint that he has purchased one MI LED TV 55 INCH (25622/133100009701) for an amount of Rs. 38,000/- from opposite party No. 1 vide invoice No. 934 dated 5.3.2022 and the opposite party had given the warranty for one year and 1+1 year extended warranty on display Panel. The complainant further alleged in the complaint that the above said LED stopped working in the month of December 2022, therefore the complainant booked a complaint which got Token No. M5440448 and marked to the opposite party No. 3. The complainant visited the care centre of opposite party No. 3 on 26.12.2022 and the opposite party No. 3 refused to repair the LED of the complainant by saying that it’s warranty has expired. The complainant alleged that the LED in question was under warranty period.
11. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed objections that said LED was activated as per record and database on June 15, 2021, but the complainant has produced a bill alleging that the product was sold on March 5, 2022. The opposite party No. 2 checked the database and it was ascertained that the product was out of warranty. Therefore, the technician of the authorized service centre of opposite party No. 2 was not able to repair the product for free of cost. The opposite party No. 2 further alleged that the complainant has not presented any technical evidence by way of technical report from a reputed technical laboratory in support of his allegations that the product is suffering from manufacturing defect.
12. We have gone through the entire facts and evidence produced by both the parties. The complainant has produced the warranty card Ex.C-2 in which the date of purchase is mentioned 5.3.2022 and also mentioned the invoice number and seller details. The complainant has also produced the invoice Ex.C-3.
13. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 2 has produced the job sheet dated 28.12.2022 in which the invoice date has been mentioned as 15.6.2021. It is also mentioned in the said job sheet Ex.O.P2/2 that product cannot power on. The only reason for not repairing the above said LED is mentioned in the said job sheet that the same is out of warranty. The opposite party No. 2 has admitted the period of warranty i.e. one year. The opposite party No. 2 failed to produce any database record to which they relied upon that the activation date of the LED is 15.6.2021.
14. On the other hand, the complainant has established his case and produced cogent evidence by way of producing invoice Ex.C-3, warranty card Ex.C-2. The opposite party No. 2 admitted the defect in the LED and they also issued the job sheet Ex.O.P2/2 regarding the defect of LED. From the above said discussion and evidence produced by both the parties it established that the complainant has purchased the said LED on 5.3.2022 vide invoice Ex.C-3 from the opposite party No. 1 and the defect was occurred within the period of warranty.
15. Therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to replace the LED in question with the same model within 15 days from the communication of the present order, in default the opposite parties are directed to refund the purchase amount i.e. Rs. 38,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 5.3.2022 till its actual realization to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 3,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
1st Day of July, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
