Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/16/2019

Anoop Singh Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s XIAOMI Technology India Pvt. Ltd., (XIAOMI India) - Opp.Party(s)

Raj Kishore Adv.

04 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	16 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	09.01.2019
Date of Decision	:	04.01.2021

 

                                       

                       

 

Anoop Singh Rana S/o Late Sh. B.S. Rana, aged 39 years, R/o H. No. 67 -B, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh

 ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.     M/s XIAOMI Technology India Pvt. Ltd., (XIAOMI India), By Rising Stars Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., 380, Belerica Road, Shri City Siddam Agra-Haram Village Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittor Dsitt. Andhra Pradesh-India. Pin-517541, through its Regional Manager. (Parental Company & Manufacturer).

2.     M/s XIAOMI Technology India Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Delta Block, Embassy Tech Square, Kadubeesanahali, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka India. PIN-560103, through its Regional Manager. (Customer Care).

3.     M/s XIAOMI Service Center, SCO No.12, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

4.     M/s Sahni Mobile Center, SCF No. 36, Sector 28-C Chandigarh, thorough its Proprietor/ Partner.
(Dealer).

5.     M/s HDB Financial Service Ltd., (Financial of XIAOMI Mobiles) 3^rd and 4^th  Floor, Hemalatha Mansion,  7-1-397/111 & 112, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, Telengana (India) PIN-50038. Through its Manager.

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
		SHRI RAJAN DEWAN,	PRESIDENT
		SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	None for the complainant
	Sh.Autl Goyal, Advocate for OP No.2. OPs No.1, 3 to 5 exparte.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that  he purchased a mobile phone make Xiaomi REDMI Note 5 Pro vide invoice dated 19.04.2018 for a sum of Rs.17,999/- from OP No.4 by financing the same from OP No.5, having warranty of one year.  After 2-3 days of its purchase, when the complainant called someone or received some call from outside, he was unable to talk on the phone as there was great noise and disturbance as the keys of the mobile phone worked automatically without its use and he contacted OP No.4 for its exchange who advised him to contact OP No.3 (Service Centre).  He contacted OP No.3 who returned the mobile phone after updating the software. It has further been averred that the mobile phone in question was again giving the same problem and as such he again approached OP No.3 who kept the same on the pretext that they want to thoroughly repair it and to find out the actual problem to be faced by him.  However, OP No.3 returned the mobile phone after three days without issuing any receipt.  It has further been averred that the mobile phone in question was giving the same problems and he requested the OPs either to repair or change it with a new one as there was some manufacturing defect in the mobile phone but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.    
2.         Despite due service through registered post, OPs No.1, 3 to 5 have failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
3.         In its written statement, OP No.2 has submitted that it is engaged in marketing, sale and service inter alia of the mobile phones under the brands “Mi” and “Xiaomi”.  It has further been pleaded that the complaint is false, frivolous and concocted one and the same has been filed to unnecessarily harass it.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant has not submitted any evidence such as job sheet in connection with any alleged visits to the authorized Service Centre of OP No.2.  It has been denied that the complainant had approached the service centre. It has further been pleaded that the complainant has not provided any evidence regarding the manufacturing defect in the product. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         We have heard the Counsel for OP No.2 and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint as well as the affidavit, filed in support of the complaint, that the mobile phone in question started given problems in its functioning soon after its purchase and he approached the service centre of the OPs many times to get it repaired but they failed to rectify the same.   OP No.2 took a plea in its written statement that the complainant has not submitted any evidence such as job sheet in connection with any alleged visits to the authorized Service Centre of OP No.2 and he has not provided any evidence regarding the manufacturing defect in the product. However, we are of the considered view that if mobile phone in question is functioning properly within the warranty period and the OPs/Service Center have rectified the defects in it then there was no need for the complainant to approach this Commission for redressal of his grievances.
6.         From the perusal of the complaint, it seems that the complainant is more inclined towards replacement of the mobile phone than its repairs. However, the law on the point is well settled that if the defect(s) can be set right by repair/replacement of part(s), there is no need to replace the machine as a whole.  Otherwise also, the complainant has not placed on record any document whereby it can be proved that there was some inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question.  As such, we are of the view that the complainant cannot be granted the relief of replacement of the mobile set at this stage.  Nevertheless, there is no denying the fact that the mobile phone in question started giving problems within the warranty period, therefore, the opposite parties are bound to repair it. 
7.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed as under ;-
   1. To repair the mobile set in question, free of cost, to the satisfaction of the complainant within a period of 45 days failing which they shall refund the invoice price thereof to the complainant.
   2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
   3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.
8.           This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
9.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced 04.01.2021	Sd/-
	(RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER