BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.179 of 2017
Date of Institution: 21.7.2017
Date of Decision: 16.2.2018
Kailash Chand Mundra aged about 69 years (senior citizen) son of late Sh. Ram Lal Mundra, R/o Dhana Katli Street, Noharia Bazar, Sirsa (Haryana), Mobile No.93151-66333.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Shree Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa through its Proprietor.
2. Xiaomi / Redmi Authorized Service Centre, Shop No.251, Old Civil Hospital Complex, Behind LIC Building, Sirsa (Haryana) through its authorized Manager/ Incharge Mr. Raman Sachdeva.
3. Xiaomi India, C/o Ikeva Business Centre, 8th Floor, Umiya Business Bay Tower 1, Cessna Business Park, Kadubeesanahalli, Marathahalli- Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bangalore- 560103, through its Managing Director/ Authorized person.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. N.K. Daroliya, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that opposite party no.1 is the dealer of Xiaomi Mobiles, op no.2 is authorized service centre of Xiaomi Mobiles whereas op no.3 is the manufacturer of Xiaomi Mobiles. The complainant on 6.9.2016 had purchased a new mobile handset Model Xioami’s Redmi Note 3 from opposite party no.1 vide bill no.4131 dated 6.9.2016 and op no.1 had charged a sum of Rs.11,999/- from him. It is further averred that at the time of purchase of the said handset, the op no.1 had given one year warranty to the complainant. That thereafter the complainant started using the said mobile but after sometime, the said mobile started giving troubles such as screen blinking during any process, battery charging slowly, battery drain fast, network issue, automatically switch off, voice/ microphone problem and heat etc. The complainant immediately contacted with op no.1 and requested to remove the defect after getting the same checked but op no.1 stated that he is the only dealer/ retailer of the Xiaomi mobiles and asked the complainant to contact the op no.2 i.e. authorized care centre. That on the advice of op no.1, the complainant contacted the op no.2 and made him aware about the problems occurred in the mobile on which op no.2 had taken the said mobile from the complainant with the assurance that the problems shall be removed and the handset shall be handed over to the complainant within a period of 10 days. That thereafter the complainant kept on making rounds to the centre of op no.2 for a period of about one month and after a period of one month, the said mobile was delivered to the complainant with the assurance that all the problems have already been removed and the mobile is in ok condition. It was further assured by op no.2 that such problems shall never be occurred again in the mobile. It is further averred that complainant again started using the said mobile but to the surprise of complainant after lapse of about one week, the said handset started giving some trouble. Moreover, the said handset had automatically switched off without giving any such direction. The complainant tried to switch on the same but he failed. That thereafter again the complainant approached the op no.2 and op no.2 had taken the handset from the complainant and after conducting minor checking, it was told to the complainant that the handset shall be sent to op no.3 for necessary repairs. The op no.2 also issued job sheet dated 29.6.2017 to the complainant in this regard. However, op no.2 had not sent the said handset to op no.3 for repair and returned the same to the complainant on the same day i.e. on 26.9.2017 and stated that now the handset is in ok condition and the problems of said handset has been removed. It is further averred that the complainant again started using the said mobile but after few days, handset again started giving trouble and he again contacted with op no.2 but the op no.2 raised his hand saying that the same cannot be repaired. That the handset is still lying with the complainant in unrepaired condition and the same is still under the period of warranty but inspite of this fact, the ops are not giving any heed to the request of complainant and have been avoiding him. That such act and conduct on the part of ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and complainant has suffered great mental shock, agony and harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that mobile set is purchased by op no.1 from its manufacturer/ distributor in a sealed and packed condition and then sell out the same as received from the distributor/ manufacturer on the nominal profit. In the eventuality, if the customer desires to see the outlook of the set, the dealer always provides the demo-set as well as catalogue provided by the manufacturer, hence there is no active part of op no.1 between the customer and manufacturer. The answering op has never given any guarantee/ assurance or warranty of mobile set to the complainant as giving of guarantee/ warrantee by answering op does not fall within his criteria, hence the question of giving any guarantee/ warrantee without having received from manufacturing company to the complainant does not arise at all. It is further submitted that any mobile set could occur the fault/ defect or any mis happening, act of God, maintenance, installation, adjustments, testing, modification, spills of liquor or substances, curly cards that have been stretched or crimped, damage caused by ancillary equipments used with product/ mobile, hence op no.1 is not liable to replace or repair the set, if there is any fault the same could be detected and removed by authorized service centre only. The complainant never approached to op no.1 and if the complainant would have approached to the answering op, then the answering op would have tried his best to redress the grievance of complainant, if any through proper channel. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant for the first time approached to the answering op with minor problems on 29.6.2017. The mobile set of the complainant was minutely inspected/ checked on computer monitor, after due satisfaction the same was returned to him in the evening time i.e. on 29.6.2017. Thereafter, the complainant never approached to the answering op with any complaint/ defect rather preferred to file the present complaint. Apart from the conduct of the complainant, the answering op is still ready to remove any sought of problem, if occurred in the mobile set, despite the fact that the warranty of the set has been lapsed. It is further submitted that care centre is working as per the parameters of terms and conditions of manufacturing company.
4. Opposite party no.3 in its separate reply also asserted that complainant never approached the op no.1 or any of its agents after June, 2017 and not submitted the product for necessary technical examination in connection with defects in the product. Had the complainant approached the op no.1 or any of its agents and submitted the product for necessary technical examination, the service centre would have ascertained any defect in the product and would have repaired all the defects in the product or replaced any defective part as per the standard warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product.
5. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1 and copies of job sheets Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4 and copy of track consignment document Ex.C5. On the other hand, op no.1 tendered written statement as Ex.RA and op no.3 tendered reply as Ex.R2 and affidavit of Mr. Sameer BS Rao as Ex.R3. OP no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Raman Sachdeva, Incharge Ex.RW1/A.
and 3 did not appear despite notice and were proceeded against exparte.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments of his complaint. He has categorically deposed that he had purchased a new mobile on 6.9.2016 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.11,999/- and he was given one year warranty with the assurance that in case of any defect within the period of warranty, the same shall be removed immediately free of cost and in case of any manufacturing defect, the handset shall be replaced with new one or in the alternative the amount equivalent to the price of mobile will be returned to him. After sometime of the purchase of the mobile, the same started giving troubles such as screen blinking during any process, battery charging slowly, battery drain fast, network issue, automatically switched off, voice/ microphone problem, heat etc. He approached the opposite party no.1 and requested to remove the defects and op no.1 asked to contact the op no.2 i.e. authorized care centre. Thereafter, complainant contacted op no.2 and made him aware about the problems occurred in the mobile upon which op no.2 took the mobile from him with the assurance that problems shall be removed and handset shall be handed over to him within a period of 10 days. He has further deposed that thereafter the complainant kept on making rounds to the centre of op no.2 for a period of about one month and after a period of one month the said mobile was delivered to him with the assurance that all the problems have been removed and the mobile is in ok condition and such problems shall never be occurred again in the mobile but again within short period of one week, the problems again occurred in the mobile which could not be removed. The complainant has also placed on file copy of bill as Ex.C1 and copy of job sheet dated 19.5.2017 as Ex.C2 and copy of service order dated 29.6.2017 as Ex.C3. It appears from the evidence of complainant that mobile of the complainant is suffering from some defects and is not working properly despite repairs carried out by op no.2 i.e. service centre of the company. But however complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion from which it could be presumed that mobile of the complainant is suffering from any manufacturing defect, but it is legal obligation of the ops to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile and to make the same defect free.
8. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set of the complainant and to make it defect free even by replacing parts, if any without any cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and further directed to replace the mobile with same make and model if the same is found not repairable. We further direct the ops to refund the price of the mobile in question within further period of 15 days if mobile of the same make and model is not available. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. The complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile in question to op no.2 well in time. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:16.2.2018. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
