PER:
Nidhi Verma, Member
1 The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.
2 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 and 13 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the opposite party No. 1 is dealer, opposite party No. 2 is authorized service centre and opposite party No. 3 is manufacturer & head office of Readmi Mobile Phones in India. The complainant purchased a mobile Redmi 4 gold (32 GB) mobile from the opposite party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 9500/- against bill dated 9.8.2017. Thus the complainant falls under the purview of consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. The said mobile phone is having some manufacturing defect as all the times the battery of said mobile phone discharges in 2-3 hours only and in this short span of time, the complainant has taken the said mobile phone to the opposite party No. 2, who has repaired the said mobile phone thrice, but the said problem is still existing in the said mobile phone. Lastly, the said mobile phone was repaired by the opposite party No. 2 on 27.9.2017 and they had changed the data cable of said phone and by that time the opposite party No. 2 had assured the complainant that the said problem has been now resumed and now it will work properly, but the said assurance of the opposite party is fake and the said mobile phone is still having same problem. As such, the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested to replace the said mobile phone with new one, but they have refused to accede the genuine requests of the complainant. The said mobile phone was sold with one year warranty and the same is still under warranty period, even then the opposite parties are not replacing the said faulty mobile phone, which act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is facing immense mental tension, pain, agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has prayed that the present complaint may be allowed and the following reliefs may be awarded to the complainant:-
(i) The opposite parties may kindly be ordered to replace the said defective mobile phone, Redmi 4 Gold (32 GB) with new one or in the alternative the cost of said mobile phone be ordered to be refunded to the complainant
(ii) A compensation alongwith cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- may kindly be awarded to the complainant.
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party No. 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by inter alia pleadings that the opposite party No. 1 is ostensibly a vendor of product sold by Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited in the present case, opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 2 is an authorized service centre of opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 3 is a company incorporated under the companies Act 2013 and was incorporated in India on October 7, 2014, having its principal place of business at 5th Floor, Block Delta, B Block, Embassy Tech Square, Inside Cessna Business Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring road, Kadubeesanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore-560103. The opposite party No. 3 is engaged in the marketing, sale and service inter alia of mobile phones in India under the brands “Mi” and “Xiaomi” Mr. Manikaran Bawa complainant has allegedly purchased a phone sold under the Mi brand-namely, the Redmi 4 Gold mobile phone for Rs. 9,500/-. All Mi and Xiaomi brand mobile phones sold within India are sold under a set of Warranty terms and conditions. Said warranty terms are the specific and limited warranty terms offered in connection with all Mi and Xiaomi brand phones sold within India, including the product purchased by and delivered to the complainant. On September 27, 2017 the complainant approached the authorized service centre of opposite party No. 3 with issues related to the product. On examination by the service engineer, it was ascertained that the product was facing issue related to battery charging. The service engineer duly recorded the issue in the service job sheet No. WXIN1709270007909 and provided the job sheet to the complainant. After examination and reviewing the product at the service centre, the defects related to battery in the product was duly repaired by the technicians of the authorized service centre of opposite party No. 3 as per the standard warranty conditions and the product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition. At the very outset while the complainant has alleged that the product has been repaired three times by the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 3, he has only furnished evidence of repair for one single time i.e. on September 27, 2017. It is complainants own admission that when the device was presented for repair on September 27, 2017 it was duly repaired by the opposite party No. 3’s authorized service centre. The opposite party No. 3 and its agents have duly complied with their obligations of service and warranty. The complainant has provided no evidence that the device was submitted for repair more than once, and his allegations must therefore, be limited to the single repair that is shown by the job sheet submitted with the complaint. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No. 3 or any of its agents, Opposite party No. 3’s authorized service centres duly received the complainant’s product when it was submitted, examined it for defects and repaired the product as necessary, in accordance with the warranty terms and conditions as applicable under which the product was sold. The limited warranty clause associated with the product states:-
“This limited warranty shall apply to Xiaomi products. For handset and accessory defects under normal use circumstances and at the discretion of the company , Xiaomi shall provide free of charge repair and / or replacement services within the warranty period”
The terms and conditions of the warranty clause reproduced above established that
- Within the warranty period Xiaomi shall provide free of charge repair and/ or replacement services for defective parts.
- The choice of repair and/ or replacement is at the discretion of Xiaomi.
- No other remedies (such as for example, refund) are provided for under the limited warranty.
This complaint is nothing but a strategy of the complainant to extend the warranty of the product or to get a refund and unnecessarily harass the opposite party No. 3 with this frivolous and concocted litigation. The complainant has also not provided any evidence to prove or demonstrate manufacturing defects in the product. Mere allegations and unsupported averments in the complaint regarding manufacturing defects in the product cannot be held against the opposite party No. 3 and the complainant is required to prove manufacturing defects in the product. The opposite party No. 3’s authorized service centre duly repaired all the defects in the product and delivered the product in proper working condition as promised to the complainant. The complainant raised no objection at the time of delivery of the product to him. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 3 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
4 Notice was issued to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2, but the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 did not appear despite service, therefore, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.
5 To prove the case, Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. C-W1/A alongwith original bill Ex. C-1, copy of Job sheet Ex. C-1 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sameer B.S. Rao, authorized signatory Ex. OP3/1, copy f terms and conditions of warranty provided by the opposite party No. 3 alognwith the product Ex. OP3/2, copy of terms and conditions of warranty published on the website of the opposite party No. 3 Ex. OP3/3, copy of service record Ex. OP3/4 and closed the evidence.
6 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 3 and have gone through the record on the file.
7 From the combined and harmonious reading of the pleadings and documents is going to prove on record that in the present case, the complainant purchased a mobile readmi 4 gold (32GB) mobile from the OP No. 1 for a sum of Rs.9,500/- against bill dated 9.8.2017. The said mobile phone is having some manufacturing defect as all the times the battery of said mobile phone discharges in 24 hours only , the complainant has taken the said mobile phone to the OP No 2 for repair thrice, but the said problem is still existing in the said mobile phone. Lastly the said mobile phone was repaired by the OP No 2 on 27.9.2017 and they had changed the data cable of said phone and assured that the said problem has been now resolved and now it will work properly but the said mobile phone is still having same problem. The complainant approached the Opposite Party and requested to replace the said mobile phone with new one but they refused to accede the complaint as the said mobile phone was sold with one year warranty and the same is still under warranty period. Whereas the opposite party No 3 stated in its written version that the complainant has alleged that the product has been repaired 3 times by the authorised service centre but he has only furnished evidence of repair for one single time i.e on September,27, 2017. Ex. C-2. Moreover, complainant himself admitted that when the device was presented for repair on 27.09.2017 it was duly repaired by the OP No 3’s authorised service centre. Complainant failed to provide any evidence that the mobile phone was submitted for repair for more than once. The limited warranty clause associated with the product States :-
“ this limited warranty shall apply to Xiaomi products. For handset and accessory defects under normal use circumstances and at the discretion of the company. Xiaomi shall provide free of charge repair and /or replacement services within the warranty period.”
A copy of this document enclosed and delivered to the complainant along with the product is provided as Annexure A. On 27.09.2017 the complainant approached the authorised service centre with the issue related to the mobile phone, after examination by the service engineer it was ascertained that the mobile phone was facing issue related to battery charging. The service engineer duly recorded the issue in service job sheet No wxin1709270007909 and provided the job sheet to the complainant. After examining and reviewing the mobile phone, the defects related to battery in the product was duly repaired by the technician as per the standard warranty conditions and the product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition. The complainant thereafter never approached OP No3’s authorised service centre and therefore didn’t provide a fair opportunity to the OP to examine any further defects in the mobile phone. In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. V. B.C. Thakurdesai and Anr., II (1993 CPJ 225 (NC), it is held that
“If a consumer purchases some machinery and some part of it is found having manufacturing defect and that part can be replaced then it will be very prejudicial to the interest of the manufacturer, if he is asked to replace the whole machinery without sufficient cause”
8 We are of the considered view that the complainant’s mobile phone was duly received, examined it for defects and repaired, in accordance with the warranty terms and conditions as applicable and under which the product was sold. Moreover complainant has not submitted the product to the Opposite party No. 3 or any of the OP3’s authorised service centres for any further defects persisting in the mobile phone. Further the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove manufacturing defects in the mobile phone. The complainant has failed to prove the deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties. However, the Opposite party No. 3 is directed to repair the mobile phone to the satisfaction of the complainant without any cost in the interest of justice. Copy of order will be supplied by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.
Announced in Open Commission
14.07.2022
