IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2020
Present: Sri. Manulal.V.S, President
Smt..Bindhu.R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
CC No. 165/18(Filed on 02/08/18)
Complainant : Sony Sebastian,
I-A, Unity Enclave,
Kanjikuzhy,
Kottayam-686004.
Vs
Opposite parties : 1) Sri. Manu Kumar Jain,
Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd.
Bangalaore560103
Karnataka.
2) Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd
Bangalore, 560103
Karnataka.
(OP 1&2Adv.Meril Muthu P John)
3) Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd
Malleswaram West
Bangalore560055
(Adv. Rayin K.R)
4) L.M. Services,
Jubilee Buildings, T.B.Road,
Kottayam686001.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal.V.S, President
The crux of the complaint is:
The complainant for his personal use purchased an Mi 20000 mAH Li-Power bank 2i manufactured by the second opposite party through the second opposite party vide invoice no. BLR5-649976 dated 30-03-18 for an amount of Rs. 1,499/-. The complainant was made to understand that the power bank had six months warranty. On 24-07-2018, the power bank was not working properly and thereon the complainant took it to the fourth opposite party who is the authorized service center of the second opposite party, claiming warranty along with the invoice copy. But to the quite dismay of the complainant the fourth opposite party stating lame excuses, that the paper cover box of the product was not accompanied by the product and denied the service under warranty. To the surprise of the complainant when he contacted the customer care of the second opposite party, they too insisted the complainant to produce the paper cover box along with the power bank. The complainant alleged that such a stand is unheard and absurd. The demand of the customer care service of the second opposite party to produce the paper cover box for warranty service is only to cause difficulty to the customers. Thereafter the complainant caused a legal notice to the first and second opposite party and the customer care of the second opposite party issued a reply without any application of mind. The CEO of the second opposite party has not cared to see to it that the assurance and warranty given by them are honored. The first opposite party ought to have duly directed the second and fourth opposite party to replace the product which is sold through the third opposite party, under warranty rather than raising, some lame excuses. The complainant avers that these companies who deal with the customer complaints according their whims and fancies are taking the customers for a ride. The act of the opposite parties in not providing due warranty service for the defective power bank amounts to deficiency in service and undue insisting of the box cover for availing service under warranty would amount to unfair trade practice. The above said illegal act of the opposite parties cause irreparable injury to the complainant , therefore this complaint is filed by the complainant for an order for replacement of the defective power bank and for a compensation of Rs. 5000/- for the loss and hardship suffered by him.
Upon notice from this forum the opposite parties one to three appeared before the forum and filed version. Though the notice was served to the fourth opposite party the fourth opposite party did not care to appear before the forum or file version.
The first and second opposite party filed joint version contending as follows:
The first and second opposite parties are one and the same company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in the marketing , sale and service of the mobile phones in India under the brands “Mi” “Xiaomi”. The third opposite party is a e-commerce website and vendor f the products sold by the first and second respondents. The fourth opposite party is an authorized service center of the first and second opposite party. The complainant has purchased a power bank sold under Mi brand namely , Mi 20000 maH Li-Polymer Bank 2i from the second opposite party for an amount of Rs. 1,499/- vide invoice dated 30-03-2018. All Mi and Xiaomi brand mobile phones sold within India are sold under warranty terms and conditions and the copy of the same is delivered to the complainant along with the product.
The complainant approached the service center of the respondents with issues related to the product and informed the service engineer that the product is not working. The complainant was duly advised by the service center to produce the cover box, since replacement terms and policies applicable to the product clearly states that if the original packaging is not produced before the service center, the device cannot be replaced. The complainant did not produced the cover box but insisted for the replacement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs.
The brief of the version of the third opposite party is as follows;
The third opposite party is a well reputed company and has a very large customer base and amongst others, manages and operates the website www.amazon.in having its registered office at Bangalore. The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under consumer protection act. The third opposite party neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. The sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listing and products that are listed on the website. The conditions relating to the customer’s use of the website and specifically agreed by the customers state that the third opposite party is only a facilitator. The complainant had purchased the products on the website from the Appario Retail pvt Ltd. The complainant never contacted the third opposite party for his grievance and never made complaint regarding any defect or damaged products received. It is a contract between the seller and the purchaser and if any assistance, the same would be provided by the seller or the manufacturer and not by the third opposite party. The third opposite party has no role in the transaction and the complaint is bad for mis-jointer of the parties. The subject matter dispute is limited to the alleged manufacturing defects in the product and after sales service by the service center of the manufacturer and the allegation regarding the manufacturing defects in a product can be sustained only against the manufacturer. It is only the manufacturer or the service center of the manufacturer can resolve such defects. The third opposite party is neither in the activity of manufacturing of the product nor selling of the same. The manufacturer, subject to the terms and conditions of warranty, provides the warranty and the third opposite party has no role to play in the warranty terms and conditions. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the third opposite party and no cause of action has arose against the third opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to claim any reliefs from the third opposite party.
In order to prove his case complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of the chief examination and Exhibits A1 to A3 and MO1 were marked. Sameer, who is the authorized representative of the second opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked exhibits B1 and B2. The senior corporate counsel of the third opposite party filed proof affidavit for the third opposite party and got marked Exhibits B3 and B4.
On the evaluation of the complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points for consideration.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the opposite parties.?
- Reliefs and costs.?
Point No.1
The third opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted by the first and second opposite party that the complainant has purchased an Mi 20,000 mAh Li-Power bank 2i manufactured by the second opposite party through the 3rd opposite party vide exhibit A1 invoice dated 30-03-18 for an amount of Rs. 1,499/-.
On perusal of exhibit A1 we can see that it was issued from the amazon.in in response to order no. 171-9543061-9122710. So we can find that the complainant has availed the service of the third opposite party for the purchase of the power bank from the first and second opposite parties. Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties and the complaint is maintainable.
Point No. 2 and 3.
As discussed above the complainant had purchased a power bank from the first and second opposite parties. The complainant was made to believe that the power bank has a warranty of six months. The complainant deposed before the forum that during the month of July 2018 the power bank has became defective and on 24-07-2018, the complainant took the power bank to the fourth opposite party who is the authorized service center of the second opposite party, claiming warranty along with the invoice copy. But the fourth opposite party denies the replacement of the power bank on the ground that the paper cover box was not handed over to the service center. The Exhibit A3 reply letter to the A2 notice the customer service center of the first and second opposite parties stated the box is mandatory for replacement. The first and second opposite party stated in the version that all the products sold by them in India are under a set of warranty terms and conditions. The first and second opposite party produced the replacement policy and marked as Exhibit B1. On perusal of Exhibit B1 we can see that it is only a print out of questionnaire and answers about the replacement of the product. It states that if the device is delivered in a defective condition or is not as ordered then original product packing is necessary for the replacement. It is the conditions for the replacement of the products if it is received by the purchaser as defective or not as ordered. Here in case in hand the specific case of the complainant is that the power bank became defective after few months of purchase which is under the warranty period. Exhibit B1 does not state about the conditions for replacement of the defective products under warranty period.
The first and second opposite party has no case that the Mo1 power bank was not defective and such defect was not due to the manufacturing defects. Moreover they did not contend that the complainant had approached the service center for the replacement of Mo1 after the expiry period of the warranty. Though the second opposite party produced the limited warranty statement along with the version they did not get it marked as Exhibit. On a mere reading of the limited warranty statement we can see that during the warranty if any accessory defect is inspected and confirmed by Xiaomi authorized service center a free replacement service shall be provided. It is admitted by the first and second opposite party that the power bank has inspected by the fourth opposite party who is the service center of the first and second opposite party. The production of the paper cover box is not required as per the condition for the replacement service under the limited warranty statement. On thought full evaluation of above said evidences we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the replacement service under warranty condition. We cannot accept the contention raised by the opposite parties that the paper cover box is mandatory for the replacement of defective device. We cannot hope that the customer would keep the cover package for a long period upto the expiry of the warranty period. Insisting such condition to avail the warranty which is negating the genuine claim of the customers would amount to unfair trade practice. Therefore we are in the opinion that the act of opposite parties denying the replacement of defective power bank during the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service.
In the circumstances we allow the complaint and passed the following order.
- We hereby direct the second and fourth opposite party to replace the defective Mi 20000 mAh Li- Polymer Power bank 2i or in alternative pay Rs. 1,499/- to the complainant.
2) We herby direct the first and second opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant for the acts of deficiency and unfair trade practice by the first and second opposite parties.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2500/- as cost to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of February,2020
Sri. Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt..Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant.
A1-Copy of the printout of the invoice No.BLR5-649976 dtd 30-3-18
A2-Copy of printout of the legal notice dtd 24/7/2018
A3-Copy of printout of the reply dtd 28/7/2018
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
B1-Replacement FAQ
B2-Help &Customer Service (Returns and Refunds)Amazon.in Returns Policy
B3-Copy of the Board Resolution dtd 22/9/2014
B4-Copy of the conditions of use
MO1-Power bank
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
