Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/173/2017

Mrs.V.Mohana W/o.Mr.E.Venugopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rahu cell park & electronics, Xiaomi Technology india ,Amadevs India los Prince center,Egmore TVS El - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Dr.G.Krishnamurthy

04 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  16.11.2017

                                                                Order pronounced on:  04.01.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL., DCL, DL & AL - PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER- I

 

FRIDAY THE 04^th   DAY OF JANUARY 2019

 

C.C.NO.173/2017

 

Mrs.V.Mohana, F/35 years,

W/o.Mr.E.Venugopal,

No.67/2, Mannappan Street,

Korrukkupet,

Chennai – 600 021.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.Seller Address:

Rep. by it’s Manager,

Rahul’s Cell Park & Electronics,

No.568, T.H.Road,

Old Washermentpet,

Chennai – 600 021.

 

2. Head Office Address:

Rep. by it’s Chairman,

Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd.,

8^th Floor, Tower – 1, Umiya Business Bay,

Marathahalli – Sarjapur,

Outer Ring Road,

Bangalore, Karnataka,

Pin Code – 560 103.

 

 

 

 

3.Brach Office Address:

Rep. by it’s Manager,

Amadeus India,

105, Prince Center,

248, Pathari Road,

Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006.

 

4.Service Center Address:

Rep. by it’s Manager,

Egmore TVS Electronics Ltd.,

Shop No. G-12, Alsa Mall, No.149,

Montieth Road, Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.
 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 28.11.2017

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. Dr.G.Krishnamurthy, K.Vishwajit

                                                                     Yogeshwaran, G.Arunkumar

 

Counsel for 1^st,3^rd , 4^th Opposite Parties  : Ex – parte ( 29.12.2017)

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                      : A.Lakshmanan        

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of cp Act to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-towards damages and Rs.3,000/- p.m. from 03.10.2017 till the date of substitution of new cell Redmi 4 towards unfair trade practice, mental agony and costs.

 

 

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The complainant purchased a cell phone Model No. Redmi 4 (4GMRAM Gold), IMEINo.1.865686037220126 2.865686037220134 and SN: 16343/80049671 from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.12,000/-. Within a month  the cellphone gave lot of hangover troubles, charger, and hearing troubles and then totally went off. The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party directed the complainant to approach the 4^th opposite party. The 4^th  opposite party forcibly collected Rs.120/- on 03.10.2017 as inspection charges but did not intimate the inspection report. Ignoring the warranty facilities available, the 4^th opposite party demanded Rs.7,800/- to cure the defects of the mobile without explaining the defects and recorded in the  service record as it is out of warranty. The 1^st and the 4^th opposite parties are hand in glove in preparing duplicate mobiles and sub standard rejected mobile phones and deceptively sell to the customers like the complainant. The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties are not supervising the 1^st & 4^th opposite parties. The report of the 4^th opposite party that pcb db was found with full liquid log is nothing but deceptive practice to cheat the public and the consumers like complainant. Hence the complaint is filed.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   ^2ndOPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 2^nd opposite party is engaged in marketing, sales and services of mobile phones in India under the brands “MI” and “Xiaomi”. The 2^nd  opposite party has no knowledge about 3^rd opposite party. The 4^th opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 2^nd opposite party. The warranty terms are the specific and limited warranty terms offered. 2^nd opposite party received the product from the complainant and there was a defect of liquid damage and it was not covered under warranty, the complainant was asked to pay the charges. Since the complainant refused to pay, the mobile was returned. Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant purchased a mobile phone model Redmi 4 (4GMRAM Gold), IMEI No. 865686037220126,865686037220134  from the 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs.12,000/- vide Bill in Ex.A1 dated 08.09.2017.  Ex.A2 is the warranty card, as per Ex.A2 warranty period is one year for hardware product, 6 months warranty for ear phone, charger, and other accessories packed with product. Ex.A3 is the service record dated 03.10.2017, fault description noted is  “Cannot power on”,   and  the inspection remarks is “Pcb db full liquid Log“, and the service type is out of warranty. As per Ex.A4 inspection charge was Rs.118. Ex.A5 is the notice given by the counsel for the complainant to the opposite parties  and 1^st  opposite party’s reply is Ex.A6.

5. The complainant would contend that he purchased the cell phone Model No.Redmi  (4GMRAM Gold), IMEI No.1 865686037220126 2. 865686037220134 and SN: 16343/80049671 from the 1^st opposite party and from the date of it’s  purchase the cell phone  gave lot of problems like hangover, charger and hearing troubles and it went off totally on 01.10.2017, when he approached the 4^th opposite party, under the direction of 1^st  opposite party he was forced to pay  Rs.120/- and demand was made for Rs.7,800/- to cure the defects without explaining any reason. The opposite parties have ignored the warranty period and also deliberately stated  the same as out of warranty and all the opposite parties have cheated and sold the substandard product to the complainant and he suffered mental agony and there is an unfair trade practice.

            6. The opposite parties called absent and they were set ex- parte.  The 2^nd opposite party filed written version with setaside petition, but failed to file proof affidavit finally and hence it was closed.

   7. As per the complaint the 1^st opposite party is the seller. The 2^nd opposite party is the Head office, the 3^rd opposite party is the Branch office and 4^th opposite party is the service centre. 2^nd opposite party is engaged in marketing, sales and service under the brands “Mi” and “Xiamoi” as per their written version. The complainant purchased the mobile phone from the 1^st opposite party and given the mobile for service to 2^nd opposite party service centre. The service was done by the 2^nd opposite party and the inspection charges are in Ex.A4. It is ascertained from the service record in Ex.A3 that the product had suffered liquid damage. i.e. damage due to exposure to liquid. Inspection remarks were recorded in the service record. On perusal of the warranty card para 5 in Ex.A2 reveals as follows:

5. Xiaomi will determine whether a product is “Out of warranty” at the company’s discretion according to the standards listed below. Repair out of warranty products shall be separately quoted by the Xiaomi service centre and respective service shall be provided upon service fee payment.

                   -Violation of the warranty terms, invalidate warranty,    

          expired warranty, or other reason.   

- During the warranty period in the event of violation which defined as customer induced damage. Such as self-repairs, exposure to water, damage caused by misuse alternation failure to comply with product manual etc.

Therefore as per the service remarks, such as exposure to water in not covered under warranty. After a month of the purchase of the mobile phone only, the defect was noticed and there is no opportunity for the sales person to expose to water and the product would have suffered induced damage by customer only. Hence the product as incorporated in the warranty card will automatically be treated as out of warranty. It is to be accepted as such. When it is treated as out of warranty the complainant need to pay for the service rendered by the 2^nd opposite party, therefore it is incorrect to say that the demand by opposite party for service is wrong and no deficiency can be attributed on the part of 2^nd opposite party.

          8. Moreover the complainant has not filed any proof that the liquid damage alleged is the consequence of the defective product supplied to him and not during the use or handling by the complainant within a month when the mobile was in the hands of the complainant. Even though the opposite parties have been set ex-parte the complainant need to prove his case. The complainant has to prove that the product purchased by him suffered manufacturing defect. Mere allegations and averments without any supporting document will not help the complainant’s case as proved.

          9. The complainant’s contention of the collusion between 1^st and the 4^th opposite parties in selling the sub-standard product is not substantiated. Complainant has not established that the purchased product is sub-standard. The complainant had been using the mobile for a month and the complaint as alleged started after a month and without producing any technical report  of its manufacturing defect  especially  the defect is pointed out as ‘pcb db full liquid log’  in the service record and the complainant cannot assign by himself  as the product has manufacturing defect. Even if the complainant finds any defect in the mobile, such remedy has got its limitations to repair or to replace any parts if it is within warranty period. But here in this case it is defined as out of warranty in the service report  as discussed above and it holds good and the warranty facilities is not ignored  wantonly by  the 2^nd opposite party. The forcible collection of Rs.120 and the demand made to the complainant for Rs. 7,800/-  ignoring  the warranty period as alleged by the complainant  is not accepted. The allegation as the 1^st & 4^th  opposite parties are  hand in glove in preparing duplicate phones  and selling the duplicate mobiles  and the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties are not supervising the same is not  substantiated by the complainant in any way. Therefore we are of the view that the  complainant had failed to prove the case  hence deserves to be dismissed.

10. POINT NO:2

          Since the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us on this 04^th   day of  January 2019.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 08.09.2017                   Copy of Bill issued by the 1^st opposite party

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Copy of warranty Card

Ex.A3 dated 03.10.2017                   Copy of Service Record

Ex.A4 dated 03.10.2017                   Copy of the bill for inspection charges

Ex.A5 dated 06.10.2017                   Legal Notice

Ex.A6 dated 24.10.2017                   Reply Notice by 1^st opposite party

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                      …… NIL …..

  

 

                                               

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT