Delhi

East Delhi

CC/276/2016

GIRISH BUTTAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MI EXCLUSIVE SERVICE CENTER - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 276/16

 

Shri Girish Buttan

House No. 67, GRD Nagar

Street No. 4, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi – 110 092                                                                         ….Complainant

Vs.     

1. MI Exclusive Service Center

(Xiaomi India)

R-42, 1^st Floor,

Opp.Metro Pillar No. 46

Main Vikas Marg, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited

Off.: 5^th Floor, Block Delta, B Block

Embassy Tech Square

Inside Cessna Business Park

Marathahalli Outer Ring Road

Kadubeesanahalli, Varthur Hobli

Bangalore – 560 103

 

3. WS Retail Private Limited

Ozone Manay Tech Park

No. 56/18, B Block, 9^th Floor

Garvebha Vipalya, Hosur Road

Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 068                                                  …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 31.05.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 18.01.2019

Judgement Passed on: 30.01.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This present complaint has been filed by Shri Girish Buttan against MI Exclusive Service Center (Xiaomi India) (OP-1), the Authorized Service Centre; Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited (OP-2), the manufacturer and WS Retail Private Limited (OP-3), the facilitator, with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

 2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant Girish Buttan purchased a Xiaomi Mi 4i mobile phone, IMEI no. 866376020949043 on 14.05.2015 for    Rs. 12,999/- from Flipkart, an e-commerce platform authorized by OP-2 vide invoice no. BLR_WFLD20150500576594. 

            Within 7 days of purchase, the complainant found defects in the mobile and made a complaint to the Flipkart, who did not pay any heed to the complaint. The complainant approached OP-2 through its call centre and requested to change the defective handset, but representative of OP-2 suggested the complainant to approach the authorized service centre of OP-2.

            It was stated that as advised by representative of OP-2, the complainant approached OP-1 where he was informed that it will take at least 15 days to repair the handset.  After some days, the complainant received the phone back with the assurance that the speaker of the phone has been repaired. 

            After 2-3 months, there was same problem in the handset and complainant again approached OP-1, where he was told that the speaker of the phone had to be replaced and it would take 15-20 days.  The complainant again deposited the mobile with OP-1 for repairs.  After repair, the complainant received the phone, but again the same problem persisted.  He immediately visited OP-1, but no one paid any heed to the grievance of the complainant. The complainant has further stated that within a period of 11 months the handset had to be deposited with OP-1 three to four times.

On 14.04.2016, the complainant again deposited the phone for repair with OP-1 vide job sheet no. WXIN1604290003281 and he was told that there was problem with the motherboard of the mobile and the same was out of stock.  On 14.05.2016, the complainant contacted the customer care of OP-2 vide complaint no., 1682299 and was assured that his complaint shall be resolved within 48-72 hours, but nothing had been done.

It was further stated that complainant wrote emails on 16.05.2016, 18.05.2016 and 24.05.2016, but did not get any response from OPs. Till the filing of the present complaint, the mobile phone was lying with OP-1. Hence, the complainant has prayed for replacement of the mobile phone with a new phone make Mi 4i or return the price of the mobile phone  (Rs. 12,999/-) with 18% interest  and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation towards harassment and mental agony.

The complainant has annexed retail invoice/bill of the phone, emails dated 24.05.2016, 18.05.2016, 16.05.2016 and reply dated 24.05.2016, 16.05.2016and 17.05.2016 alongwith complaint. 

3.         Written Statement was filed by OP-1 & OP-2, where they have taken several pleas in their defence such as the proper name of OP-2 was “Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.” instead of “Xiaomi Communications and Logistics India Pvt. Ltd.”; the complainant approached OP-1 on 29.04.2016 with a complaint in the phone and deposited the same vide job sheet                       no. WXIN1604290003281.  

It was submitted that during the pendency of complaint, the complainant had approached the authorized service centre of OP-2 where the handset was repaired and delivered to him.  After repair, the phone was delivered to the complainant without any charge under the warranty terms and conditions. 

It was stated that there was no deficiency on the part of OP-1 &   OP-2 as the product of the complainant was duly repaired and delivered to the complainant in working condition.  The complainant had failed to provide any proof regarding the alleged visits to the authorized service centre in connection with issues related to mobile phone in question.  Other facts have also been denied.

They have annexed the copy of the invoice of the handset as            Annexure-A, copy of warranty terms and conditions delivered to the complainant alongwith the product as Annexure-B, copy of warranty terms and conditions available on website of OP-2 as Annexure-C, copy of job sheet dated 29.04.2016 as Annexure-D with their reply.

In the reply filed on behalf of OP-3, they have stated that they were merely a reseller and the complainant was entitled to replacement/refund only for the initial duration of 30 days post purchase. After that, the responsibility for warranty/replacement lies with the manufacturer i.e. OP-2 and its authorized service centre i.e. OP-1, but the complainant sent an email dated 16.05.2016, addressed to OP-3, seeking replacement or refund of the money after a period of almost 1 year of purchase of the phone.  No claim can be made out against OP-3 as the 30 days period had lapsed. Other facts have been denied.   

4.         Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both the parties, where complainant got examined himself and has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited the documents such as retail invoice no. BLR_WFLD20150500576594 dated 14.05.2015 (Ex.CW1/1), copy of email dated 16.05.16 with reply (Ex.CW1/2 & 1/3), copy of email dated 18.05.2016 and 24.05.2016 (Ex.CW1/4 & 1/5) and reply of email dated 24.05.2016 (Ex.CW1/6).  

            Shri Sameer B.S. Rao, Authorized Representative of Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., was examined on behalf of OP- 1 & OP-2. He has also deposed on affidavit the contents of their written statement.

            In defence, OP-3 have examined Shri Yalavatte Srinivasa who has also deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement. 

5.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-3 as none have appeared on behalf of OP-1and OP-2 to argue. We have perused the material placed on record.  If a look is made to Ex.CW-1/1, which is retail invoice dated 14.05.2015, it is noticed that the complainant approached OP-1 to get the handset repaired within the warranty period.

The complainant has stated that the handset suffered from inherent defect in the speaker within few days of purchase. He has even alleged that his handset, which was handed over after repairs, suffered from same issues.  If we look at the job sheet of date 29.04.2016 which has been annexed as Annexure-D by OP-3, it reveals that the product was in warranty and the description of the fault given was “speaker fault” and the main board was replaced. It was only after the filing of the present complaint, the complainant was handed over the handset after repairs. Further, the e-mails annexed with the complaint and exhibited as Exhibit CW1/2 to Exhibit CW1/5 are standard mails in response to the mails written by the complainant. An application was also filed during the pendency of the complaint alleging that on 02.07.2016 the complainant had been handed over the handset, had same issues for which it was deposited with OP-1 for repairs. Thus, it is clear that the handset was returned to the complainant almost after a span of more than 2 months. Therefore, the delay in delivery of repaired handset, definitely amounts to deficiency in service on part of OP-1 and OP-2, hence, the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment, this shall be inclusive of litigation expenses. OP-1 and OP-2 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation. An application was also moved by OP-1 and OP-2 for directions to the complainant to produce the handset for inspection, as the handset had been repaired and returned to the complainant. The complainant in support of his allegation that the repaired handset still had the same problem, he has placed nothing on record such as job sheet, that being so, no direction can be given for production of the handset. Thus, the application of OP becomes infructuous.  Since, the complainant has placed no job sheet/ document to support his averment, that the handset had the same issues for which it was given for repair, no relief can be granted on that account.

As far as OP-3 is concerned, complainant has placed one email to    OP-3 dated 16.05.2016, which is after more than 1 year, alleging the sale of defective product/ handset. They being a facilitator, cannot be held liable for deficiency in service as the after sale services are to be provided by the manufacturer. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

        President