BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.359 of 2019
Date of Instt. 27.08.2019
Date of Decision: 29.06.2021
Rishi Bhatia s/o late Sh. Jagdish Bhatia R/o B-4/5 sector 15 Rhoini Delhi 89.
Second Address:- 351, UE, Phase-II Jalandhar. Mob. No.7009456556.
….. Complainant
Versus
1. Malhotra infoccom Malhotra house model town opp gurudwara sahib Jalandhar.
2. Sis service solutions 186 lower basement model town opp niku park Jalandhar.
3. Xiomi head quarters; xiomi technology india pvt ltd 8th floor tower-1 Umilya Business bay Marathahalli sarajpur outer ring Road Banglore 560103 karnatka india.
..…Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Complainant in Person.
OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.
Sh. Aditya Jain, Adv. Counsel for OP No.3.
Order
Kuljit Singh (President)
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that the complainant purchased mobile Mi Redmi Note 6 PRO having IMEI No.868932038955097 from OP No.1 Malhotra infocom on 10.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.13,500/-, vide bill Ex.C-1. That all of sudden in June, Hotspot of the said mobile stopped working when the complainant was in Delhi with his family. After few days complainant went to service center of MI to get the problem resolved, copy of certificate of service is Ex.C-2. The complainant was stunned to hear from executive that mobile was not on his name it was on the name of some Rajiv and to utmost surprise of complainant mobile was already invoiced on 26.11.2018. That mobile was again invoiced to complainant on 10.01.2019 that is after a gap of forty five days approx stating it as new mobile sealed with company seal. Then complainant went to OP No.1 Malhotra Infocom on 05.07.2019 after returning from Delhi and told them about issue the complainant was facing. That OP No.1 denied the charges and asked the complainant to come up with proof. That complainant visited OP No.2 with same Hotspot issue and to get the service record stating invoice dated from local service centre but service centre executive interchanged the sims and said problem is resolved at counter itself so they cannot issue any certificate of service record although problem is still intact. That the complainant visited OP No.1 with service record issued by service centre of Delhi and invoice. OP No.1 i.e. Malhotra inforcom agreed that it was invoiced again and the complainant was given second hand mobile and further stated that it was not their fault as they purchased the same from distributor in January 2019 itself and agreed that mobile should be as good as second hand mobile and assured to replace the same. That OP No.1 kept assuring complainant that OP No.1 is in talk with distributor and that complainant will get new handset as soon as distributor supplied fresh mobile handsets and kept delaying the matter till date. The above said act and conduct of the OP, tantamount to unfair trade practice and negligence in service to the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay full claim of mobile cost i.e. Rs.13,500/- with interest and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant.
Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.1 & 2 failed to appear and ultimately OPs No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.3 appeared through its counsel and filed reply, whereby contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is frivolous, vexatious, concocted and has only been made to unlawful gain and unnecessarily harass the OP No.3. Without prejudice, it is respectfully submitted that this matter pertains to the alleged sale of second hand mobile by the Malhotra Infocomm, in present case the OP No.1 to the complainant. The OP No.3 has no role whatsoever in the said transaction as the product was not brought from OP’s No.3 website and the OP No.1 is solely responsible for such transaction. The complainant has himself stated in his complaint that it is the OP No.1 from whom the complainant has purchased the alleged second hand handset and the complainant requested the OP No.1 on multiple occasions to replace the same however, the OP No.1 denied to replace and kept on dallying the matter. It is most respectfully submitted that the complainant in the present case has no cause of action whatsoever against the OP No.3. Therefore, OP No.3 is not a proper party to the present complaint. Moreover, when the complainant approached the authorized service centre of OP No.3 in relation with the defects related to the product, the technician of the authorized service centre of OP No.3 duly examined and repaired the product and duly returned the product to the complainant in proper working condition. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3. It is the OP No.1 against whom the grievance of complainant lies and shall accordingly, claim remedy from the OP No.1. Therefore, on this ground alone, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP No.3. The complainant is invited to seek any applicable remedy against the OP No.1 instead. It is further submitted that the OP No.1 is a seller/vendor of the products manufactured by the Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. O PNo.3 in the present matter. That OP No.2 is an authorized service centre of the OP No.3. That the OP No.3 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 2013 and was incorporated in India on October 7, 2014 having its principal place of business at Building Orchid, Block E, Embassy Tech Village Marathahalli- Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560103. The OP No.3 is engaged in the marketing sale and service inter alia of mobile phones in India under the brands Mi and Xiaomi. The complainant has allegedly purchased a handset sold under the Mi Brand namely Redmi Note 6 Pro on January 10, 2019 for Rs.13,500/- bearing IMEI No.868932038955097. All Mi and Xiaomi brand mobile phones sold within India are sold under a standard set of warranty terms and conditions. A copy of these warranty terms and conditions, as enclosed and delivered to the complainant alongwith the product, is provided. Said warranty terms are the specific and limited warranty terms offered in connection with all Mi and Xiaomi brand phones sold within India, including the product purchased by and delivered to the complainant. On June 11, 2019 the complainant approached the authorized service centre of the OP No.3 with issues related to the product. The complainant informed the technician of the authorized service centre of the OP No.3 that the complainant was facing issue related to the product. The service engineer duly recorded the issue in Job sheet and requested the complainant to wait until the examination/inspection is completed. After examining and reviewing the product at the service centre, the defects related to the product was duly repaired by the technicians of the authorized service centre of the OP No.3 for free of cost as per the standard applicable warranty conditions and the product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition as can be ascertain from service job sheet. A copy of the job sheet as generated and provided to the complainant. On merits, it is submitted that the OP No.3 has no role whatsoever in the said transaction as the product was not bought from OP No.3’s website and the OP No.1 is solely responsible for such transaction. The OP No.3 had duly provided the service to the complainant on his visit, therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3., but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
Rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.3, filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.
In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.
We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OP No.3 and have also gone through the case file very carefully.
6. In nutshell, the case of the complainant is only that he had purchased a mobile Mi Redmi Note 6 PRO having IMEI No.868932038955097 from OP No.1 Malhotra infocom on 10.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.13,500/-, which is evident from bill Ex.C-1 and all of sudden, in the month of June, Hotspot of said mobile stopped working when the complainant was at Delhi, where the complainant went to service centre for resolving the problem, copy of the job sheet is Ex.C2, where he knew that the mobile was not on his name it was on the name of some Rajiv and the said mobile was already invoiced on 26.11.2018. The said mobile was again invoiced to complainant on 10.01.2019 i.e. after a gap of forty five days approximately stating it as new mobile sealed with company seal. After returning from Delhi, the complainant went to OP No.1, but OP No.1 denied the charges and asked the complainant to come up with proof. After some time complainant went OP No.1 with service record, where OP No.1 agreed that it was invoice again and was given second hand mobile and further stated that it was not their fault as OP No.1 purchased the same from Distributor and gave assurance to the complainant to replace the same, but despite many visits, the OP No.1 failed to do so and as such, the complainant filed the present complaint.
7. On the other hand, the OPs No.1 & 2 failed to appear before the Commission for contesting his case, but OP No.3 appeared and filed his reply, wherein alleged that this matter pertain to the alleged sale of second hand mobile by the OP No.1/Malhotra Infocomm to the complainant. The OP No.1 has no role whatsoever in the said transaction as the product was not brought from OP’s No.3 website and OP No.1 is solely responsible for such transaction and also the authorized service centre of OP No.3 in relation with defects related to the product, the technician of the authorized service centre of OP No.3 duly examined and repaired the product and duly returned the product to the complainant in proper working condition. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3.
8. After considering the overall facts and circumstances, one thing is clear that the mobile set of the complainant is second hand mobile as well as defected one, which was sold by the OP No.1 to the complainant and the same caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant. There is a great negligence on the part of the OP No.1 to sell the second hand product to the complainant and moreover, the said mobile is defected one, which was not cured by OP No.1 and moreover, the OPs No.1 & 2 failed to appear in the Commission to contest the case. So, therefore there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1 and as such, the complainant is entitled for relief claimed.
9. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP No.1 is directed to refund the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.13,500/- and further the OP No.1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.1500/- as litigation expenses. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.
10. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work and spread of Covid-19.
11. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
22nd of June 2021
Kuljit Singh
(President)
Jyotsna
(Member)
