Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/57/2020

Arvind Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Flipkart Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

16 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/57/2020
Date of Institution	:	30/01/2020
Date of Decision	:	16/12/2021

 

Arvind Gupta S/o Ramayan Gupta R/o # 746, Kishangarh, Near I.T Park, Chandigarh-160101

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Flipkart Pvt. Ltd. Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Bengaluru 560103 Karnataka through its representative.
2. M/s XIOMI Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Address: 8^th Floor, Tower-1, Umilya Bussiness Bay, Marathahalli Sarajpur outer ring road, Bangalore-560103 through its Representative/Director/Agent.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh.Atul Sharma, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	Sh.Atul Goyal, Counsel for OP No.2.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Briefly stated the allegations are that the complainant had purchased through online order one REDMI NOTE 7 PRO Handset smart phone through Flipkart the Opposite Party No.1. The smart phone was priced at 13,999/-, the copy of the said bill is annexed as Annexure C-1. The complainant had received a courier on 10.04.2019 which contained the said smart phone. After few days of working, a small hair line crack of 0.1mm thickness and about 1.5mm in length appeared near the right bottom of the touch screen of the new cell phone. The said hairline crack kept on expanding in length and width which made complainant mentally upset with the quality defect in the said smart phone which he has purchased from his hard earned money. The complainant tried to contact the given telephone number on said invoice of the smart phone, but no one responded. The complainant went to authorized service station on 13.01.2020 to find some solution but there also complainant was not properly attended and had to return empty. The said service centre even charged Rs.118/-. The copy of said bill is annexed as Annexure C-2. As per complaint the above said respondent No.2 didn’t respond to the calls dialed by the complainant on their toll free number. The said product is covered under warranty of 12 months. This act of Opposite Parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this present consumer complaint.  
2.     Opposite Party No.1 contested the consumer complaint. The product purchased by the complainant was manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 and sold by a third party seller registered on flipkart platform. The Opposite Party No.1 is not the seller of the product and further no consideration has been charged by it. The complainant has never contacted it with his grievance and has not produced any evidence to support his claim against it and also it has no role in providing warranty of the product sold by an independent seller through the flipkart platform. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended.
3.     Opposite Party No.2 contested the consumer complaint. The complaint is denied and the complainant is put to strict proof of the allegation made in the paragraphs. The Opposite Party No.2 stated that the complainant has damaged the screen of the handset (by dropping or mishandling) and is making baseless allegation that the screen of the handset cracked on its own. All MI and Xiaomi brand mobile phones sold within India are sold under a standard set of warranty terms. The copy of warranty terms is annexed as Exhibit-A. The technician of authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.2 declared that the touch panel of the product was broken. It informed the complainant that the screen of the product is damaged due to which the product is out of warranty and the product is ineligible for free inspection or repair/replacement of defective part. The copy of job-sheet is annexed as Exhibit-E. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.     It is admitted fact that the handset in question was purchased by the complainant on 10.04.2019 which is manufactured by the Opposite Party No.2 and the online order was placed with Opposite Party No.1 for buying it. As per the case of the complainant he received handset through courier on 10.04.2019 for which the order was placed on 07.04.2019 after making a payment of Rs.13,999/-. As per complaint, in few days of working, a small hair line crack appeared near the touch screen on the handset in question. Annexure E-2 is the service record of dated 13.01.2020 in which there is mentioned that touch is broken and not covered under warranty. The allegation of the complaint is that the fault appeared to be due to manufacturing defect. Hence, is the complaint.
8.     The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.2 is that as per the warranty terms if the screen of the product is damaged, then the same is not covered under warranty. Hence the product was ineligible for free inspection or repair/ replacement of the defective part. This was main reason for charging Rs.118/- by its (Opposite Party No.2) Authorized Service Centre. Hence, there is no deficiency in service.
9.     After going through evidence on record it is abundantly clear that as per the job-sheet Annexure C-2, the touch was broken and not covered under warranty and accordingly as per Annexure C-3, the amount of Rs.118/- charged for the purpose of inspection of the handset, as per the warranty terms. There is no piece of evidence which proves that there is manufacturing defect in the handset in question. Bald assertions of the complainant cannot be believed as such in the absence of any concrete/authentic evidence. Not even a single complaint number/email/service sheet is on record which proves that the handset purchased worked well from 10.04.2019 till 13.01.2020 and had not any kind of defect.
10.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/12/2021	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rajan Dewan]
Ls	Member	President