Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/952/2017

Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

22 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	952 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	22.02.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	22.03.2018

 

 

 

 

Pawan Kumar s/o Late Sh.Hukmi Ram, H.No.1604-A, Sector 32-C, GMCH Campus, Chandigarh.       

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  M/s Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., 8^th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay Marathahalli, Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Banglore 560103 Karnataka.

2]  M/s TVS Electronics Pvt. Limited (Present Authorised Service Centre of M/s Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.), SCO No.103, Ground Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

 Sh.Vipul Sharma, Adv. for OP No.1.

 OP No.2 exparte.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant purchased one Redmi 3S mobile phone through Online Shopping for an amount of Rs.6999/- from M/s E-Mobiles, Anjaneya Infrastructure Project, Bangalore vide bill dated 10.3.2017 (Ann.A-1) and it was carrying one year warranty.  It is averred that the said mobile phone suddenly stopped functioning just after 3 months of its purchase.  The complainant deposited the said mobile phone with Opposite Party NO.2 for rectifying the defects vide Service Record dated 28.6.2017 (Ann.A-2), but the same was returned to the complainant without repair stating that the motherboard of the mobile is required to be replaced for which the complainant has to bear the expenses to the tune of Rs.6000/-.  It is submitted that though the complainant brought this matter to the notice of OPs through customer care and requested for replacement of the mobile handset with new one, but they did not pay any heed.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that on 28.6.2017, the complainant approached the authorised service centre of Opposite Party NO.1 in connection with defects in the product/mobile phone (Ann.C-C). It is submitted that after examining the product for defects, it was ascertained that the product had suffered liquid damage i.e. damage due to exposure to liquid.  It is also submitted that the complainant was accordingly informed that he has to pay repair cost since customer induced damages and liquid damages are not covered under standard warranty terms & conditions applicable to the product, but the complainant refused to pay any repair cost and hence the mobile phone was returned to the complainant.  It is further submitted that the mobile phone has suffered liquid damage so it is not covered under standard warranty and the complainant has to pay repair charges.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         Opposite Party No.2 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 20.2.2018.

 

3]       The complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the assertions of the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for OP No.1 and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The complainant has purchased a mobile Phone Xiaomi Redmi 3S (Gold, 16 GB) X000N9ZUV5 on payment of Rs.6999/- besides shipping charges of Rs.80/- i.e. total Rs.7079/- on 10.3.2017 of Opposite Party No.1 vide bill/invoice Ann.C-1. 

7]       The said mobile phone of the complainant developed several faults in its operation and resultantly, the complainant took the mobile phone to Opposite Party NO.2 i.e. Authorised Service Centre of OP No.1 on 28.6.2017 (Ann.C-2).  Admittedly, as stated in the reply by Opposite Party No.1 under the head Factual Background, Para No.4 (Page 3), the complainant was declined service of his mobile phone only on the ground that the customer i.e. the complainant himself induced liquid damage in the product.  The reasons put forth by the Opposite Parties in refusing to repair the mobile phone within the warranty period, are without any supporting evidence or technical report of their Engineer.  The Opposite Parties are duty bound to stand to their commitment for repair of the mobile phone within the warranty period, but they have miserably failed to abide by their part of the contract, which amounts to breach of trust on their part.  The OPs suffers deficiency in service on their part in failing to provide after sale service by declining the repair of the mobile telephone of the complainant within warranty period.

 

8]       In view of the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the complaint is allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties to jointly & severally refund an amount of Rs.6999/- i.e. cost of the mobile phone, to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 

9]       However, the complainant shall return the mobile handset to the OPs along with accessories, if any, after the receipt of awarded amount.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

22^nd March, 2018                                                

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER