DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 427 of 12.10.2016

                                      Decided on:   30.11.2018

Navrosh Singh Sandhu aged about 27 years son of S.Jaswant Singh Sandhu resident of House No.1042, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. MI Experience Service Centre, Xiaomi Exclusive Mohali, SCF-118 (First Floor), Phase 3B2, Mohali, through its Manager/Authorized official ( Authorized Service Center).
2. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Ozone maney tech park, 4^th Floor, Block A sy.No.56/18 & 55/9, Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Hosur Road, Garvebhavipalya Bengaluru-560068.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member         

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.S.S.Sahni, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Dhiraj Sachdeva, counsel for OPs.       

 ORDER

                                    M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT       

1. This is the complaint filed by Navrosh Singh Sandhu (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against MI Experience Service Centre and another (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one MI mobile for a sum of Rs.12,321.33 with one  MI 4i hard case black, for a sum of Rs.261.14, vide invoice dated 24.7.2015 through on-line, through OP No.2 and paid amount through debit card.
3. It is alleged that in the end of May,2016, the mobile was damaged . Display screen was broken/damaged inspite of the fact that it had put on company’s given hard cover to protect the mobile phone, by paying extra amount for the safety of the mobile phone.
4. He went to the office of OP No.1 and handed over his mobile to it. OP No.1 issued job sheet dated 3.6.2016 and assured to return the mobile phone within short time. The office of OP No.1 charged Rs.4300/- and returned the phone on 24.6.2016. The display screen was damaged due to un matched, un suitable mobile cover, which was having manufacturing defect. It is alleged that the OPs are deficient in service and they took almost 22 days in replacement of display screen. For this delay, complainant suffered a lot, faced harassment and mental agony. For these sufferings, the complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
5. It is further case of the complainant that on receipt of mobile phone, he faced another problem created/caused by OP No.1 during the time phone remained its custody and during replacement process of display screen. The power on-off switch button cum volume button panel was damaged by OP No.1. This problem was not being faced by the complainant.
6. The complainant again visited office of OP No.1 to get the mobile phone lock free but the problem could not be rectified by OP No.1.Complainant also called service centre officials on their number i.e.0172-464814 repeatedly. They pressurized the complainant to deliver the mobile at their service centre. Ultimately, the complainant went to the office of OP No.1 and handed over the mobile on 4.7.2016 at OP No.1 vide job sheet  No.JS16070400422 and it was assured that they will replace the  phone within some days and will return the mobile in a good working and satisfactory condition. The complainant made so many e-mails, messages to OP No.2. They demanded certain details, which were also duly replied but OP No.1 did not reply to the request of the complainant inspite of repeated mails and messages. Some messages were replied with evasive, vague and false pleas but the mobile was not handed over/replaced.
7. On this background of the facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and has claimed the following reliefs:

1. Rs.13,298/- cost of mobile phone and cover
2. Rs.20,000/- as damages and compensation
3. Rs.1,00,000/-as harassment and mental agony
4. Rs.4300/- as cost of alleged display screen
5. Rs.21000/-as cost of complaint

Hence this complaint.

8. Upon notice, OPs contested the complaint by filing the written reply. In the reply the OPs made preliminary submissions that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, concocted and filed to harass OP No.2. The OP No.2 at all times offered to settle the matter with the complainant by providing replacement of the product in dispute with a new and upgraded handset of a higher model as a goodwill gesture since there was a delay in repairing the product but the complainant all times refused to settle the matter, which clearly establishes malafide intention on the part of the complainant. The OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint in limine for being frivolous, concocted and vexatious.
9. On merits also it is admitted that OP No.1 is the authorized service centre of the product sold by OP No.2.It is admitted that the complainant has purchased the product from OP No.2.These products are sold within India under standard set of warranty terms. The warranty terms are the specific and limited warranty terms.
10. It is admitted that on 3.6.2016, complainant approached the authorized service centre with a complaint regarding the product. On examination it was ascertained that the product had broken screen. Service engineer duly recorded the issues in the service job sheet and provided the job sheet to the complainant alongwith estimated cost for repairing the product. The broken screen  of the product was duly and properly repaired by the technician and the product was delivered to the complainant in proper working condition.
11. On 4.7.2016, complainant again approached the authorized service centre with the issue related to power button. Service engineer recorded the issue in the service job sheet and provided job sheet to the complainant. Owing to delay in providing the repaired product to the complainant, OP No.2 offered replacement of the product with a new and upgraded handset of a higher model but the complainant refused to accept the replacement.
12. On merits, also the OPs have denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and reiterated their stand as taken in the preliminary submissions. It is also pleaded that as per limited warranty, the OPs are to provide free of charge repair and/or replacement services for defective parts within warranty period. Parties are bound by terms of the warranty. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
13. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence.
14. In support of the complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of tax invoice, Ex.C1, copy of service job sheet, Ex.C2, copy of service job sheet, Ex.C3, copies of e-mails Exs.C4 to C37. Complainant also submitted written arguments.
15. The OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Samer BS Rao, Ex.OPA and closed the evidence.
16. The ld. counsel for the complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. It is also submitted by the ld. counsel for the complainant that factual position as revealed by the complainant is not denied by the OPs. The OPs have rather admitted deficiency in service on their part. It is admitted that the complainant firstly submitted mobile on 3.6.2016 but it was returned after repair on 24.6.2016 and took 22 days in the repair of the mobile, which amounts to deficiency in service. Thereafter the mobile was not properly repaired. Again the complainant submitted the mobile with the OP on 4.7.2016 but the mobile was not returned to the complainant till the filing of the complaint, which was filed in October,2016. It also amounts to deficiency in service. It is proved that the OPs were deficient in providing timely service. Of course, after appearance the OPs have offered to provide new mobile set but as the complainant has already suffered from harassment for deficiency in service, therefore, the complainant cannot be compelled to accept this offer. The complainant did not want the mobile hand set of the OPs due to deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to refund of the price i.e. Rs.13298/-.The complainant is also entitled to the compensation, damages and litigation expenses as prayed for.
17. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has submitted that as per complainant himself he has purchased the mobile on 24.7.2015. First time problem was reported on 3.6.2016, which proves that the complainant has used the mobile for a period of about more than 10 months without any problem.The first problem reported on 3.6.2016 was damaged/breaking of display screen. Admittedly, it is not due to any manufacturing defect but due to some other reason attributable to the complainant himself. The OPs have provided limited warranty only of repair or replacement of the defective parts. The complainant cannot claim, as a matter of right, repair of the parts without proving manufacturing defect. Of course, there is some delay in providing service. The OPs have fairly offered replacement of the mobile with a new upgraded handset with a higher model, as a goodwill gesture. This offer was made immediately after appearance before this Forum. This offer was also made in the written version. The complainant has not accepted this offer. It proves that the complaint has been filed only with malafide intention. Complainant has already used the mobile for more than about 10 months. He has caused damaged to the display screen, which is not covered under the warranty. Therefore, now the complainant also cannot claim refund of the mobile hand set.
18. We have given careful consideration to the submissions.
19. The admitted facts are that the complainant purchased the mobile, manufactured by OP No.2, on 24.7.2015. The first problem was reported on 3.6.2016 which was regarding damage to the display screen. The broken display screen was got replaced by the complainant on payment of charges. This fact itself shows that admittedly this problem was not covered under the warranty. The next problem reported by the complainant was on 4.7.2016 regarding power on off buttons. Of course, OPs have failed to do the needful within the reasonable time and have admitted that there is delay in providing solution. In this way, the OPs have admitted deficiency in service.
20. Now the question is regarding the relief for which the complainant is held entitled.
21. The complainant claimed refund of the price. OPs have offered from the very beginning free of cost replacement of the mobile with a new and upgraded handset of a higher model.
22. The complainant has already used the mobile without any problem up to 3.6.2016 i.e. for a period of about 10 months. There is nothing on record to prove any manufacturing defect. Therefore, in these circumstances, the offer of replacement of mobile with a new and upgraded mobile set is considered to be best and genuine offer. Of course, this offer has been made after filing of the complaint. As such, as the complainant was forced to file the complaint.Therefore, the complainant is held entitled to the costs of litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.3000/-.
23. For the reason recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/-as costs to be paid to the complainant by the OPs. The OPs are further directed to provide a new mobile up graded hand set, as offered in the written version. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:30.11.2018     

 Kanwaljeet Singh                   Neelam Gupta             M. P. Singh Pahwa

       Member                                 Member                                      President