BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.45 of 2018.
Date of institution: 02.02.2018.
Date of decision:20.03.2019.
Tajinder Singh, aged 22 years, s/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh, r/o H.No.74, Ward No.31, Dogran Gate, Jail Road, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- M/s. TVS Electronics Limited, C/o DHL, 4th Floor, Plot No.193-197 & 254, 258, 137 & 248-249 Jigani Link Road, Bommasandra, Industrial Area, banglore-562106 through its Prop./partner.
- M/s. Jyoti Mobiles, Shop No.4, Opp. Jat School Ground Karnal Road, Kaithal through its Prop./partner.
- One Assist Consumer Solution Pvt. Ltd., 707-708-709, Acme Plaza Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri, Mumbai-400059.
- Xiaomi India, C/o IKEVA, Business Centre, 8th Floor, UMIYA Business Bay Tower-1, Cessna, Business Park, KADUBEESANAHALLI, MARATHAHALLI, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Banglore-560103.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate, for the complainant.
Op No.1 given-up.
Sh. Aman Sharma, Auth. Reprt. for Op No.2.
Op No.3 exparte.
Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the OP.No.4.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant purchased online mobile Redmi Note 4 bearing IMEI No.8631940333627471 from the Op No.1 vide invoice No.517030114376012501 dt. 02.03.2017 for a sum of Rs.12,999/-. It is alleged that the said mobile set was insured with the Op No.3 and the complainant paid Rs.749/- as insurance charges. It is further alleged that in the last week of December, 2017 the mobile set of complainant became defective with the problems of system freeze, failed to charge, on standby, auto power off, cannot power on, hang, battery back-up was stopped in the month of December, 2017. The complainant visited the Op No.2 for its repair but the Op No.2 demanded Rs.800/- for its repair. The complainant requested the Op No.2 that the said mobile set is within warranty period but the Op No.2 refused to repair the said mobile set. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs No.2 & 4 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.3 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 26.11.2018 and Op No.1 was given-up by counsel for the complainant vide statement recorded separately on 04.10.2018. Op No.4 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections that the Op No.2 is an authorized service-centre of Op No.4; that on 28.12.2017 the complainant approached the authorized service-centre of Op No.4 in connection with the defects in the product. The technicians of the authorized service-centre of Op No.4 duly received the product and recorded the issues in the job-sheet. After examining the product for defects, it was ascertained that the product had suffered liquid damage i.e. damage due to exposure to liquid. The technicians of authorized service-centre of Op No.4 duly informed the complainant about the liquid damage in the product and also requested the complainant to pay repair costs but the complainant refused to pay the repair costs and the product was duly returned to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW2/A, Op No.4 tendered into evidence Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure RA to Annexure-RC and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Undisputedly, the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from the Op No.1 through online vide invoice dt. 02.03.2017, Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.12,999/- and the said mobile set was got insured by the complainant from the Op No.3 after paying Rs.749/- as insurance charges. The grievance of the complainant is that the said mobile set became defective within the guarantee period with the problems of system freeze, failed to charge, on standby, auto power off, cannot power on, hang, battery back-up was stopped. The complainant deposited the said mobile set with the Op No.2 on 28.12.2017, vide job-sheet Ex.C2 but the Op No.2 and refused to repair the mobile set within warranty period and demanded Rs.800/- for its repair. We have perused the job-sheet dt. 28.12.2017 Ex.C2, wherein in the column of inspection remarks, it is mentioned “mobile set liquid damage” and in the column of service type,
it is mentioned “Out of warranty”. The complainant has also put his signature on the job-sheet, Ex.C2. We have perused the para No.5 of the terms and conditions of the warranty, Annexure-RA, which is as under:-
“Xiaomi will determine whether a Product is “Out of Warranty” at the company’s discretion according to the below listed standards. Repair of Out of Warranty Products shall be separately quoted by the Xiaomi service centre and respective service shall be provided upon service fee payment.
During the warranty period, in the event of violation which is defined as customer induced damage, such as self-repairs, exposure to water, damage caused by misuse, alternation, failure to comply with the Product manual, etc.”
We have also perused the document device claim-service request submitted by the Op No.2, vide which the service request of the complainant was closed on 03.01.2018 and in the column of remarks, it is mentioned “THE SUBJECT CLAIM IS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER EXCLUSION 1-loss or damage to the Gadget due to mysterious circumstances/disappearance or unexplained reason. So, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that if the product suffers damage due to exposure of water at the hands of complainant, the product will automatically be held to be “Out of Warranty”. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the mobile set of complainant was damaged due to exposure of liquid. Hence, we found no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we found no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:20.03.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
