Haryana

Ambala

CC/85/2018

Sandeep aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Xiaomi Technology India pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Vashisht

05 Mar 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                          Complaint case No.:  85 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution  :  07.03.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :  05.03.2020.

Sandeep Aggarwal son of Sh. Ramswroop Aggarwal, resident of House No.275/9 Katcha Tank Nahan District Sirmour, H.P.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                    Versus

1. M/s Xiomi Technology India Private Limited, 8th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay Marathahalli-Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India, Pin Code-560103. (E-mail Ids:
2. M/s eBay India Office Address: eBay India Private Limited, 14^th Floor, North Block, R-Tech Park, Western Express highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400063, Maharashtra, India.
3. M/s Kanchann apartment Geeta Colony Delhi-31.
4. HCL Service Ltd., 16/2 Main Prem Nagar Road, adjoining OBC Bank, Ambala City (Authorized Service Centre) through its Manager/Prop./Partner.

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

Present:       Shri Subhash Chander, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

                    Shri Pankaj Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

                   OP No.3 already ex parte v.o.d. 01.05.2018.

                   Shri Harjit Singh, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.4.

ORDER:     SHRI VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.13,999/- i.e. the cost of the mobile in question.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.  
   382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased a mobile handset Xiomi Redmi Note 03 (silver) for an amount of Rs.13,999/- vide invoice no.SDINV0091 dated 04.06.2016, at the address at 97-98 Goyal, Niwas Govind Nagar, Ambala Cantt., H.R.. At the time of its purchase OP No.1 provided its one year warranty. After using the mobile in question for six months, in the month of January, 2017, mobile in question started giving problem like overheating of its battery, blindness of screen, non working of micro phone. Complainant contacted OP No.1 and 2 on customer care No.18001036286, but no satisfactory reply was given. On 02.05.2017, complainant took the mobile in question to the service centre of the OP No.1, but they flatly refused to entertain the complaint of the complainant on the ground that the mobile in question was purchased online through ebay.com. Despite several requests of the complaint, its paid no heed to the legitimate request of the complainant. Complainant informed the OPs regarding the non-functioning of the mobile in question and asked to replace the same as the same is within its warranty period, and then the OP No.1 told that the matter belongs to OP No.2. Complainant contacted OPs No.1 to 4, but of no avail. By no repairing or replacing the mobile in question, being under warranty, OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version stating therein that complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous, concocted. Except for mere allegations and unsupported averments, complainant has failed to furnish any evidence such as the invoice of the product or any document showing the IMEI number of the product. Additionally, the complainant has not submitted any job sheet in connection with any alleged visits to the authorized service centre of the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint filed against it, with costs.

                   Upon notice OP No.2, appeared through counsel and filed written version denying averments made in the complaint prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

                   Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.3 before this Forum, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.05.2018.

                    Upon notice, OP no.4 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability. On merits, it is stated that the one year warranty provided by OP No.1 is not application or validate on the products purchased from ebay.com. Complainant never approached OP No.4 and no such request had been received by the OP No.4 at Ambala. OP No.4 is a service centre at Ambala, Haryana which cannot be impleaded in the array of parties as the complainant has never approached OP No.4. Moreover, if the complainant has any grievance with service centre at Chandigarh, then he should have filed this complainant at Chandigarh arraying necessary party to the complaint. Complainant himself specifically stated under para 3 of the complaint that he has taken the said handset to the Service Centre at Chandigarh, which clearly shows that the complainant never approached the OP No.4 at Ambala with the said handset and has falsely arrayed it a party to the present complaint and made false contentions against OP no.4 for deficiency in service and as such prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint. 

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents Annexure C1 & C2 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the OP No.4, tendered affidavit of Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, Deputy Manager of the company/group of HCL Learning Limited having its registered office at 806, Siddharth 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi as Annexure OP-4/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-4/1 to OP-4/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.4. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the OP No.1, tendered affidavit of Shri Sameer BS Rao, son of Mr. Sundar Rao, Authorized Representative of Xiomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Building Orchid, Block E, Embassy Tech Village, Marathahalli Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka as Annexure OP1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.1.  On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the OP No.2 stated that he does not want to lead any evidence on behalf of the OP No.2 and prayed that written statement filed on behalf of OP No.2 be read in evidence.

4.                We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the version as mentioned in the complaint and prayed for allowing the present complaint.

6.                Similarly, the learned counsel for the OPs reiterated the version as mentioned in its written version and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

7.                Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant purchased a mobile handset Xiomi Redmi Note 03 for a sum of Rs.13,999/- vide Invoice no.SDINV0091 dated 04.06.2016 from the OPs, with one year warranty. Mobile in question worked properly for six months, but in the month of January, 2017, battery  of the mobile in question started giving heating problem, screen became blind and micro phone stopped working. Complainant contacted OPs No.1 and 2, and took the mobile in question to the service centre of the OP No.1 at Chandigarh, but they flatly refused to entertain the present complaint. Complainant approached the OPs several times, but of no avail.    By not repairing the mobile in question, OPs have committed deficiency in service.

                   On the contrary, Ld. counsel for the OP No.1 argued that complainant has not submitted any evidence such as the invoice or any document showing the IMEI No. Of the product to ascertain the warranty period. Complainant has not submitted any job sheet in connection with the alleged visits to the authorized service centre of the OP No.1. Complainant has not provided any evidence regarding manufacturing defects in the product, as such OP No.1 is not deficient in providing the service.

                   On the other hand Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 argued that all the companies belong to out  of Ambala and the mobile in question was purchased from Xiomi Technology their authorized office at Bangalore and as such the complaint is not maintainable in Ambala. As such OP No.2 is not deficient in providing services to the complainant.

                   On the other hand Ld. counsel for the OP No.4 argued that complainant never approached OP No.4 and no such request had been received by the OP No.4 at Ambala. OP No.4 is a service centre at Ambala, Haryana which cannot be impleaded in the array of parties as the complainant has never approached OP No.4. Moreover, if the complainant had any grievance with service centre at Chandigarh, then he should have filed his complaint at Chandigarh arraying necessary party to the complainant. The complainant never approached the OP No.4 nor did he ever request or contacted the OP No.4 qua the said handset and hence OP No.4 cannot be held liable for any deficient services.

8.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased a mobile Xiomi Redmi Note 03 amounting Rs.13,999/- vide invoice No.SDINV0091 dated 04.06.2016 (Annexure C-1) online from the site of OP No.2. As per complainant the said mobile in question was having warranty for a period of one year. Mobile in question worked smoothly for a period of six months, but thereafter in the month of January, 2017, battery of the mobile in question started giving heating problem, screen became blank and micro phone stopped working. Complainant contacted the OPs, but of no avail. Thereafter, complainant visited the service centre of the OP No.1 at Chandigarh, who also refused to rectify the defects of the mobile in question. On the other hand Ld. counsel for the OPs has stated that complainant has not approached to them, nor moved any evidence regarding defect in the mobile in question. During the pendency of the present case, the complainant moved an application for sending the mobile in question to any technical expert for inspecting the same and said application was allowed by this Forum vide its order dated 19.11.2018. Accordingly, Ms. Renu, an expert of Govt. ITI Ambala City tendered her report on 17.05.2019. From the perusal of said report, it is apparent that during call, the person hearing on opposite side was not able to hear the voice of caller as such there is defect in the mobile in question. During inspection, mobile not became hot and screen of the same not turned black. This report has not been controverted by the OPs’. In view of the report it is quite clear that there is defect in the mobile in question. In the present case, complainant has sought direction to the OPs for refund of cost of Rs.13,999/- of the mobile in question. As the mobile in question became defective under warranty, it is the sole responsibility of the manufacturer or authorized service centre to rectify the defects. Complainant purchased the mobile in question from OP No.2. As OP No.2 is only the seller, it cannot be held liable for any defect in the mobile in question. Accordingly, the complaint filed against it, is liable to be dismissed.  To meet the ends of justice, we held the OPs no.1, 3 and 4 liable to rectify the defects of the mobile in question. At the same time, we also hold that complainant is also entitled for the compensation/litigation charges on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.

9.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against the OP No.2 and allow the same against the OPs No.1, 3 and 4 and direct them in the following manner:-

1. To repair the mobile phone in question, if not in a position to repair the mobile phone in question, then to refund Rs.13,999/- i.e. cost of the mobile set in question to the complainant. 
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

                   The OPs No.1, 3 and 4 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :05.03.2020.

   Sd/-                                                Sd/-                               Sd/-

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

           Member                              Member                          President