Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/355/2017

Mr. Nipun Monga - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Flipkart Shreyash Retail Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Kumar Adv.

22 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	355 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	20.04.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	22.02.2018

 

 

 

 

Nipun Monga son of Sh.S.L.Monga, SCO 27, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh.        

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  M/s Flipkart Shreyash Retail Pvt. Ltd., Warehouse Address No.42/1 43, Kacherakanahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India 560067

2]  HCL Services Ltd., (MI Exclusive Center), SCO No.2471/72, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

3]  M/s HCL Services Ltd. (Formerly Known As HCL Care Ltd.), a subsidiary of HCL Infosystems Ltd., SCO 66-67 Sector 17-A, Near Taj Hotel, Chandigarh.

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Sanjay Kumar, Adv. for the complainant

 Sh.Rohit Kumar, Adv. for OP No.1.

 Sh.J.S.Thind, Adv. for OP No.2 & 3.

 Sh.Vipul Sharma, Adv. for OP No.4.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant purchased mobile Phone Redmi 3S Prime (Dark Grey, 32 GB) bearing IMEI No.861112035783043 from OP No.1/Flipkart for a sum of Rs.8499/- vide bill dated 3.10.2016 (AnN.C-1) and it was carrying one year warranty.  It is averred that the said mobile handset is having problem of Power On/Off from the day of its purchase. The complainant brought the said defect to the notice of Authorised Service Centre, who instead of repairing the mobile phone under warranty, gave an estimate of repair to the tune of Rs.8901/- (Ann.C-2).  Thereafter, the complainant requested the OPs for refund of the cost of the mobile handset, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The Opposite Party NO.1 has filed reply and while admitting the sale of the mobile handset in question, stated that OP No.1 is engaged in only selling of goods manufactured and produced by other manufacturers and in the instant case, the Opposite Party NO.4/Xiaomi India Pvt. Ltd. is the manufacturer of the mobile in question and Opposite Party NO.3 is its authorised service centre. It is also stated that the warranty of the product in question is being provided by the manufacturer i.e. Opposite Party NO.3.  It is further stated that the liability to provide after sale service does not lay upon Opposite Party NO.1.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party NO.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.          

         The OPs NO.2 & 3 have filed joint reply stating that the handset was under the warranty period but as the problem in the handset in question has occurred due to liquid logging, which is a result of careless and negligent handling of the said handset by the complainant, so it does not cover under the warranty terms of Opposite Party NO.4 as the warranty got lapsed and repairing amount of Rs.8901/- was rightly demanded by Opposite Party NO.2 (Ann.A-2).  It is stated that Opposite Party NO.2 & 3 are not responsible to replace the product in question manufactured by Opposite Party NO.4 and they are only concerned with the service of the handsets.  Denying other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

         The Opposite Party NO.4 has also filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the product in question was duly received by Opposite Party NO.2 and was checked and it was ascertained that the product suffered liquid damage and the complainant was duly informed about the costs of repairing the product since the product was beyond warranty owing to liquid damage in the product.  It is submitted that the complainant however refused to pay the cost of repair and the product was duly returned to him. Other allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.  

 

3]       The complainant also filed rejoinder(s) reiterating the contentions made in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

 

6]       The complainant has purchased Mobile Phone Redmi 3S Prime (Dark Grey, 32 GB) bearing IMEI No.861112035783043 from OP No.1/Flipkart Shreyash Retail Private Limited for a sum of Rs.8499/-, carrying one year warranty, vide bill dated 3.10.2016 (Ann.C-1). 

 

7]       The said mobile handset developed problem in its Power ON/OFF mode. The complainant took the mobile handset to Authorised Service Centre i.e. Opposite Party NO.2 on 8.12.2016 and the Service Centre issued a Repair Estimate of Rs.8901/- for the repair of the mobile handset (Ann.C-2). The mobile handset though was in warranty period, but its repair was declined levelling allegations of liquid logging in the phone attributing negligence on the part of the complainant in proper handling of the mobile phone. There is no evidence on record to substantiate this fact of liquid logging in the mobile phone because of any contributory negligence on the part of the complainant. The period beginning from October till February in the Northern Region of India remains cold & humid and during this period all products/goods available in the market are prone to moisture due to averse climatic conditions in this region. The OPs cannot be permitted to decline the repair of their products due to such extraneous climatic affects on their products, which they have sold to the consumers.

 

8]       Section 2(1)(g) & 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stipulates as under:-

 (f)  "defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods;

 

(g)     "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inade­quacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;

 

9]       The mobile phone of the complainant is defective, which failed the test of its optimum utility, as expected from such product.  The OPs have refused to attend to its repair, free of cost within warranty, which amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on their part.

 

10]      The complainant has purchased the mobile phone in question from Opposite Party NO.1 and Opposite Party NO.4 is the manufacturer of the said mobile handset, whereas OPs NO.2 & 3 are authorised service centre. The OPs NO.1, 2, 3 & 4 are jointly & severally are responsible to settle the claim of the complainant.    

 

11]      Keeping into consideration the interest of justice and the facts & circumstances of the case, the complaint is allowed with directions to OPs to jointly & severally pay an amount of Rs.8499/- to the complainant along with compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

         However, the complainant shall return the mobile handset to the OPs along with accessories, if any, after the receipt of awarded amount.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. 

Announced

22^nd February, 2018                                                     

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER