Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/308/2019

Himanshu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Malhotra Mobile Service - Opp.Party(s)

Nasib Singh

19 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    308 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         01.08.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 19.07.2022

 

Himanshu s/o Shri Somnath, r/o Ban, District Kurukshetra, Haryana.

 

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                      Versus

 

1. Malhotra Mobile Services, Shop No.14, First Floor, Vidhata Complex, Opp. New Bus Stand, Kurukshetra, Haryana-136118 through its Proprietor.
2. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Orchid Block – E Ground Floor, Embassy Tech Village, Marathahalli-Sarjapur outer ring RD, Devarabisanahalli, Bangaluru, Karnataka-560103, through its Managing Director.
3. Flipkart Registered Office Savan Retailers Pvt. Ltd., 11/29, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi Central, New Delhi-110060, through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                                      ...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Shri Naseeb Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite Party No.1 ex parte.

                   Shri Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2.

                   Shri Pawandeep Kalyana, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.3.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,  1986.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile make Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 Pro IN 4 GB and 65 GB Golden Colour for Rs.14,999/- from OP No.3, vide Invoice No.FABBLX1900296610 dated 13.6.2018. After sometime of its purchase, the mobile phone started giving problems of hang, battery backup low and auto off and he took his mobile to OP No.1, who told that mobile is liquid lodged and phone has become out of warranty and now not cover under warranty conditions and have to pay charges of its repair. The complainant is a student and using the phone from the last 11 months. There OPs sold defective mobile which was having manufacturing defect in it. He requested various times to OPs to repair the mobile or replaced the same, but all in vain. The above act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss as well, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs No.2 & 3 appeared and filed their respective replies, whereas, OP No.1 failed to appear before this Commission and was proceeded against ex-parte.

4.                OP No.2 in its written statement admitted purchasing the mobile in question by the complainant. It is stated that when the complainant approached the service centre of OP No.2 on 14.07.2018 and 01.09.2018 with issues related to USB Cable Not Charging in the product and after examining the product, its USB cable was replaced as per standard applicable warranty. On 01.09.2019 complainant again approached the authorized service centre of OP No.2 with issues stuck in headphone mode related to the product and after examining the product, the defects related to product was duly repaired by the technician of OP No.2 and it was duly returned to the complainant. On 11.06.2019, complainant again approached the OP No.2 service centre with issue of power to fault in the product. After examination of product, it was ascertained that Liquid Damage Indicator (LDI) in the product had changed its colour to pink/red and water marks presents inside the product. The photographs highlighting the status of LDI and it was duly informed to the complainant and requested to pay the repair costs, who refused to pay the same. The product was returned to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against them.

5.                OP No.3 in its written statement stated that the complainant used the mobile for almost 11 months and when his product was damaged due to his own fault i.e. liquid damaged, he visited the service centre, but the same was turned down by it for the reasons that it was not covered under the warranty clause. It is well settled law that the liability for defects in the products or its after sales services issues rests with the manufacturer and its authorizes service centre only and as such, complainant has wrongly arraying the OP No.l in this case and prayed for dismissal the same.                  

6.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence.

7.                On the other hand, OP No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-8 and closed the evidence. No evidence was produced by OP No.3.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel of the OPs and gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the OPs.

9.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a mobile make Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 Pro from OP No.3 on 13.06.2018. After sometime of its purchase, the mobile phone started giving problems of hang, battery backup low and auto off and the complainant took his mobile to OP No.1, who told that mobile is liquid lodged and phone has become out of warranty and now not cover under warranty conditions and have to pay charges of its repair. The complainant is a student and using the phone from the last 11 months. There OPs sold defective mobile which was having manufacturing defect in it. He requested various times to OPs to repair the mobile or replaced the same, but all in vain. The above act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise.

10.              The learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that when the complainant approached the service centre of OP No.2 on 14.07.2018 and 11.09.2018 with issues related to USB Cable Not Charging in the product and after examining the product, its USB cable were replaced. On 01.09.2018 complainant again approached the authorized service centre of OP No.2 with issues stuck in headphone mode related to the product and after examining the product, the defects related to product was duly repaired by the technician of OP No.2 and it was duly returned to the complainant. On 11.06.2019, complainant again approached the OP No.2 service centre with issue of power to fault in the product. After examination of product, it was ascertained that Liquid Damage Indicator (LDI) in the product had changed its colour to pink/red and water marks presents inside the product. The photographs highlighting the status of LDI and it was duly informed to the complainant and requested to pay the repair costs, who refused to pay the same. The product was returned to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against them.

11.              The learned counsel for OP No.3 has argued that the complainant used the mobile for almost 11 months and when his product was damaged due to his own fault i.e. liquid damaged, he visited the service centre, but the same was turned down by it for the reasons that it was not covered under the warranty clause. It is well settled law that the liability for defects in the products or its after sales services issues rests with the manufacturer and its authorizes service centre only and as such, complainant has wrongly arraying the OP No.l in this case and prayed for dismissal the same.                  

12.              There is no dispute that the complainant purchased the mobile in question online through OP No.3 on 13.06.2018 for a sum of Rs.14999/-.

13.              The grievance of the complainant is that after sometime of purchase of said mobile phone, it started giving problems of hang, battery backup low and auto off and in this regard, he approached OP No.1 service centre, who wrongly told that mobile is liquid lodged, as such, has become out of warranty and demanded the repair charges. The OPs sold defective mobile which was having manufacturing defect in it and drawn attention towards job-sheet Ex.C-2 in this regard.

14.              On the other hand, OP No.2 contended that initially on 14.07.2018 and then on 11.09.2018, complainant approached its service centre i.e. OP No.1 with charging issue and both times, after examination, USB cable of mobile phone was found defective and it replaced the accessory and these facts are evident from Service Records dated 14.07.2018 and 11.09.2018  Ex.R-3 and Ex.R-4 respectively. Again on 01.09.2018, the complainant approached the OP No.1 service centre with the issue “one side earphone not working” and fault was found “Stuck in headphone mode” and this time the issue was removed and mobile phone was returned to the complainant vide Service Record Ex.R-5. Lastly, on 11.06.2019, the complainant approached the OP No.1 with the issue “dead handset” and on examination the mobile phone, it was found “Liquid Damage Indicator” (LDI) vide Service Record Ex.R-7. In this regard, learned counsel for P No.2 contended that if the product was water logged, then it changed its colour to pink/red and water marks presents inside the product. In this regard, he drawn attention towards photograph Ex.R-6 and Ex.R-8, wherein, a red/pink colour marks is shown on the mobile phone. He contended that since the phone was water logged, therefore, it becomes out of warranty and drawn attention towards Limited Warranty Statement Ex.R-1 and its Clause Luggage sub clause This “Warranty is not valid for”, wherein it is mentioned that “Damages resulting from accidents, mishandling, negligence, unauthorized repair, tampering loss of components/accessories normal wear and tear, exposure to extreme heat and temperature solvants acids and exposure to rain/water”. Since mobile in question of complainant was water logged, as such, as per above warranty policy, it becomes out of warranty and the OPs rightly refused to repair the same under warranty period and demanded repair charges, to which, he refused to pay.

15.              Keeping in view above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that as and when the complainant raised any issue regarding the mobile in question, the same was duly resolved by the OPs and lastly, on 11.06.2019, when he approached regarding defect in the mobile, on examination, it was found that the mobile became water logged, as such, become out of warranty as per warranty policy and the OPs rightly demanded the repair charges, to which, the complainant refused to pay. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs.

16.              In view of our above discussion, we found no merit in the complaint and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:19.07.2022.

    

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)               

          (Neelam)                                                               President,

          Member.                                                               DCDRC, Kurukshetra.
 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.