Sh. Aditya Jain, Adv. Counsel for Applicant/OP No.3.
Sh. S. P. Laddi, Adv. Counsel for Respondent/Complainant.
Heard on the application for production of the alleged defective product by the complainant for examination by a service technician.
The OP has filed an application alleging that the complainant has alleged the damage of the handset. Since the damage was externally, therefore, the warranty terms were invalidated. The complainant has not produced on record any technical report from a reputed technical laboratory to prove that the product is suffering from any defect and such defect is manufacturing defect nor he has ever visited the service centre for any issue relating to the manufacturing defect, therefore, the complainant be directed to produce the defective product for the inspection of the expert.
In reply to the application, the complainant has denied all the allegations and submitted that the present application has been filed just to harass the complainant. Request has been made to dismiss the application.
The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging the manufacturing defect crop up in the mobile phone for removal of the fault ‘finger print damage’. He has relied upon the record of the service centre, service record vide which the product was produced for service. The complainant has produced all the documents. It is well settled law that the complainant is to stand on his own legs to prove his case. It is the complainant to prove whether the defect is manufacturing defect or not. The issue is to be decided on merits whether there was any finger print damage or it was a manufacturing defect and this can be decided after hearing the parties on merits. There are no merits in the application and at this stage, there is no need to produce the product for inspection when there is a service report of the OP’s service centre. Therefore, the application is dismissed.
Member Member President/02.02.2024
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No. 27 of 2022
Date of Instt. 01.02.2022
Date of Decision: 02.02.2024
Pardeep Kumar Arora son of Shri Puran Chand, resident of House No.19, Harnam Dass Pura, Jalandhar City.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Malhotra Infocomm, Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Bunty Mobile World, 1st Floor, Above Lovely Dhaba, 10, Basti Adda Road, Near Furniture Shop, Football Chowk, Jalandhar through its Authorized Representative.
3. Xiaoxi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Building Orchid, Block E, Embassy Tech Village Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, Devarabisan Halli, Benguluru 560103 through its Managing Director.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. S. P. Laddi, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
None for OP No.1
OP No.2 exparte.
Sh. Aditya Jain, Adv. Counsel for OP No.3.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OP No.1 is the dealer, OP No.2 is the Authorized Service Station and OP No.3 is the Manufacturer of the Mobile Phone make Redmi 9 Power 6/128 gb. The complainant purchased Mobile Phone make Redmi 9 Power 6/128 gb from the OP No.1 vide Invoice No.6375 dated 30.7.2021 for a sum of Rs.13,000.00. On 18.10.2021, certain manufacturing defect crop up in the mobile phone. The complainant approached the OP No.2 for removal of the fault ‘finger prints damage’. The OP No. 2 charged a sum of Rs.883.00 from the complainant vide receipt No.5432 dated 18.10.2021, whereas the mobile set was under warranty. After payment of the repair charges, the complainant obtained the mobile set, but defect was still there in the set. The complainant had been approaching the OPs No.1 and 2 for permanent removal of the defect in the mobile set or to replace the same with new set, but they had been putting off the complainant on one or the other pretext. Tight from 18.10.2021 till filing of the present complaint, the complainant had to manage his affairs without a mobile phone, which is a basic necessity for a person now a days. In this regard, the complainant suffered hardship, mental agony, tension and loss of money, due to negligent and deficient service on the part of the OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the defective mobile phone of the complainant with a fresh piece or to refund the price of the mobile phone to the complainant. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and litigation expenses be also awarded.
2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, but despite despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.3 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary submissions that the complainant baseless alleges that a manufacturing defect had cropped in the handset. The averments are baseless and frivolous as the damage inflicted externally cannot be termed as a manufacturing defect. The complainant failed to produce any technical evidence to establish that the damage that occurred in the handset is a manufacturing defect. The complainant is not an expert and under the established principle and law, a technical report from a technical expert must be provided when a complainant alleges a manufacturing defect in a product. It is further averred that the complainant has not presented any technical evidence by way of technical report from a reputed technical laboratory in support of his allegations to establish that the damage occurred to the product is a consequence of a defect in the product and not a consequence of use or mishandling by the complainant, which was ought to be produced with this complaint. The complainant has himself damaged the product and invalidated its warranty terms and is now averring baselessly to misguide this Commission. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the Xiomi Mobile with warranty of accessories and handset, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.3 filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. OP No.1 suffered a statement that he tendered into evidence document Ex.OP1-1 which may be read as written statement on behalf of the OP No.1, wherein he submitted that the handset has been sold to complainant and OP No.1 is retailer of the Brand and whole guarantee and warranty are subject to service center jurisdiction and same is already mentioned in the invoice. It is further submitted that services related complaints and its liabilities accrue to the manufacturer of the product. Therefore, the complainant is requested to approach the service center of the Brand for any deficiency if any.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. It is admitted and proved that the complainant purchased the Xiomi Mobile vide tax invoice Ex.C-1 for Rs.13,000/-. It has not been denied that the mobile was purchased with warranty of accessories and handset as per Ex.C2/Ex.OP3/2/Ex.OP3/3. This warranty document is having Warranty Period wherein 1 year warranty for Hardware Product and 6 months warranty for Xiomi original battery, charger and other accessories packed with product was available. The complainant has alleged that the manufacturing defect crop up in the mobile on 18.10.2021. The mobile was purchased on 30.07.2021. After three months of the purchase, the manufacturing defect was allegedly cropped up in the mobile. The complainant approached the OP No.2 for removal of the fault ‘finger print damage’ and the OP No.2 charged Rs.883/- for repair. The complainant has alleged that since the mobile was under warranty, therefore, the receipt of Rs.883/- for repair by the OP No.2 is wrong, illegal. The receipt has been proved as Ex.C-3. The mobile could not be repaired and again same defect still existed. He again approached the service center, but the OP refused to replace the mobile.
8. Perusal of the service record shows that the customer complaint was ‘finger print damage’ and after inspection, it was found that there was a damage in finger print. Similarly, in Fault Description, there was a mention of the fact as ‘finger print damage’. The photograph has been produced on record by the OP Ex.OP3/1. Perusal of this photograph shows that there was a cut on this finger print button. The complainant has not produced on record any document or any photographs rebutting this photograph. This photograph apparently proves that there is some cut and sensor has been effected due to this damage and this is some external damage. There is no document on the record to show that finger print button or defect in finger print button is covered under warranty. Moreso, the warranty is for manufacturing defect. The complainant has not produced on record any document or any report of any technical expert to show that this damage caused to the mobile of the complainant is internal damage and is a manufacturing defect. As per the conditions produced on record by the OP, there is no warranty, when there is external damage and when the damage is self caused. The complainant has failed to prove that the damage on the finger print button was not self caused, but it was due to manufacturing defect. The complainant was to prove that the mobile was within warranty and repair or replacement is the duty of the OP, if there is any manufacturing defect, but the complainant has failed to prove the same and thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
02.02.2024 Member Member President
