DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 332/2018
D.No.__________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ms. SURABHI W/o Sh. SUDHIR MAHAJAN,
R/o B-24/12, RAMESH NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110015. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1.M/S XIAOMI COMMUNICATIONS Co. LTD.,
C/o XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA (P) LTD.,
8th FLOOR, TOWER-1, UMIYA BUSINESS BAY,
MARATHAHALLI-SARJAPUR, OUTER RING ROAD,
BANGALORE (BENGLURU), KARNATAKA-560103.
2. M/S SAI SOLUTIONS,
BUILDING No.-8, 1st FLOOR,
VAISHALI ENCLAVE,
NEAR GULAB SWEETS,
OPP.- METRO PILLAR No.350,
PITAM PURA, DELHI-110088. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 18.05.2018
Date of decision:19.12.2019
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that the complainant purchased online a mobile handset model
CC No.332/2018 Page 1 of 7
Redmi 4 (Gold, 64 GB) B01NAKU37U vide order no. 403- 9397094-1465151& invoice no.DEL2-263671 dated 31.10.2017 for a sum of Rs.10,999/- from Amazon.in. The complainant further alleged that the said mobile handset started giving multiple problems viz. hanging/freeze, over-heating, rapid battery discharge, call drop, going into silent mode and hence the complainant contacted the Mi service centre in Pitampura, Delhi who checked the mobile handset and after inspection retained the mobile handset and job card/service order dated 12.05.2018 was issued by the said Mi authorized service centre and the repaired mobile handset was returned back on the same day stating that the software has been upgraded.However, the problem continued and the mobile handset is behaving erratically and the complainant is facing numerous problems and is highly disappointed with the product performance and hence the act of OPs is clearly unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.10,999/- towards price of the said mobile handset as well as compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing her mental pain, agony, damages and harassment and has also sought Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. OP-1 has been contesting the case and filed reply and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
CC No.332/2018 Page 2 of 7
OP-1 further submitted that all Mi and Xiaomi brand mobile handsets sold within India are sold under a standard set of warrantee terms & conditions. On 12.05.2018, the complainant approached the authorized service centre of OP-1 with issues related to the product and the complainant informed the technicians that the product was facing issue related to ‘Display, Battery and System Freeze fault’ and the service engineer duly recorded the issue in service job sheet and provided the job sheet to the complainant, after examining and reviewing the product at the service centre, the defects related to ‘Display, battery and System Freeze Fault’ in the product was duly repaired by the technician of the authorized service centre of OP-1 as per the standard warrantee conditions and the product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition. OP-1 further submitted that OP-1 subsequently received a copy of the present complaint which as been filed to extend the warrantee of the product or to get a refund.
4. Whereas notice to OP-2 issued through speed post for appearance on 06.08.2018 and OP-2 has been served on 06.06.2018 but none for OP-2 appeared on 06.08.2018, 05.09.2018, 12.09.2018 & 02.11.2018 and as such OP-2 has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.11.2018.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-1 and denied the contentions of OP-1.
CC No.332/2018 Page 3 of 7
6. In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of invoice/bill no. DEL2-263671 dated 31.10.2017 for a sum of Rs.10,999/- issued by Amazon.in and copy of service order/job sheet dated 12.05.2018 issued by authorized service centre.
7. On the other hand, Sh. Sameer BS Rao, Authorized Representative of OP-1 has filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per line of defence taken by OP-1 in the reply. OP-1 has also filed copy of Handsets Limited Warrantee Statement and copy of service record dated 12.05.2018 issued by Mi authorized service centre.OP-1 has also filed written arguments.
8. During arguments, OP-1 also filed an affidavit of Sh. Sunny Yadav, Employee/Engineer at Sai Solutions and stated that on 29.04.2019 he inspected the disputed product and the product has suffered damage as was exposed to water/liquid and further stated that due to nature of semi-conductor devices and electronics in general, such devices are susceptible to being damaged as a result of exposal to water/liquid which results in short circuits, erosion and other irreversible damage. This witness further stated that to establish whether a mobile device has been exposed to water, Xiaomi inserts into its mobile devices multiple Liquid Damage Indicators (LDIs) which are a set of stickers/components that have a specific white colour when they are inserted into the device, but
CC No.332/2018 Page 4 of 7
immediately change colour to Red/Pink when they are exposed to water and during the course of his inspection of the complainant’s product LDI within the mother board of the device has turned Red/Pink due to exposure to liquid/water and in support their of has placed on record copy of Wikipedia Report on Liquid Contact Indicator and also filed some photographs of the disputed product.
9. The complainant has filed objections to the affidavit of Sh. Sunny Yadav vide stating that no weight can be given to the affidavit of Sh. Sunny Yadav as he has failed to disclose his Technical Qualifications and the Wikipedia Report has been downloaded from Google on or about 20.01.2019 and further that on 12.05.2018 when the mobile handset was handed over to the authorized service centre for examination, the technical team/engineers of authorized service centre have not reported such defect and submitted that the affidavit of Sh. Sunny Yadav should not be believed.
10. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant and OP-1. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. No weight and trustworthiness can be given to the affidavit of Sh. Sunny Yadav as he has failed to disclose his Technical Qualification and even in the coloured photographs filed by him, LDI is not marked as turned into Red/Pink. Moreover, OP-2 has already been proceeded ex-parte
CC No.332/2018 Page 5 of 7
and Sh. Sunny Yadav is stated to be an employee of OP-2 and furthermore, the technical team of OP-1 on 12.05.2018 while issuing the job sheet has not reported that the mobile handset has suffered damaged due to exposure to water/liquid. Accordingly, we are of opinion that no benefit can be given to OP-1 on the basis of affidavit of Sh. Sunny Yadav.
11. Moreover, it is hard to believe that the complainant will lodge a false complaint against the newly purchased handset immediately after purchase and will negligently use the mobile handset so that the mobile handset will be damaged due to exposure to water/liquid and it is hard to believe that the complainant will cause damage to her mobile handset by using in a faulty manner. It appears that there has been a manufacturing and inherent defect in the mobile handset.Admittedly the mobile handset was within warrantee period and as OP-1 has failed to rectify the problem in the mobile handset, as such OP-1 has indulged in unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. Accordingly, OP-1 is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant has used the mobile handset trouble free for more than 6 months.
12. Accordingly, OP-1 is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7,000/- being the depreciated value of the mobile handset on return of the disputed mobile handset, original bill, accessories & job sheet to OP-1.
CC No.332/2018 Page 6 of 7
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation.
13. The above amount shall be paid by OP-1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, thecomplainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 19thday of December, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.332/2018 Page 7 of 7
UPLOADED BY :- SATYENDRA JEET
