Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 374
Instituted on : 10.08.2018.
Decided on : 25.07.2022.
Pankaj Kumar age 35 years, s/o Sh.Madan Lal, R/o 1538, Mohalla Para, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Redmi Mobile Co. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, (Redmi/Mi Mobile-Phone Company) 8th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay-Marathahalli- Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India, Pin Code-560103
- Dhingra Services, (Authorized Service Centre of Xiaomi/Redmi/ Mi Mobile Phone), 1st Floor, Near Vijaya Bank, Naryana Complex, (Shantmaai Chowk to Chhotu Ram Road) Rohtak, Contact No. 9355558455
- Prince Enterprises, Old Gohana Stand, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER
Present: Sh. M.K.Vaid, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party No. 2 already exparte.
Sh. Vijay Kumar, OP No. 3 in person.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the present complaint, as per the complainant are that the complainant had purchased a Redmi 4 A android mobile phone model No. Redmi 4A (2G+16G) from opposite party No. 3 which was manufactured/marketed by opposite party no. 1, vide bill/invoice no. 2769. The opposite party no. 1 gave one year warranty for the said mobile phone through opposite party no. 2. The said mobile started creating problem like stop touch screen automatically and electricity/power was not stored completely in the battery and the battery of mobile phone become auto empty and heating problem etc. just after five days of the date of purchase. Complainant approached the opposite party no. 2 and the opposite party told him that the said problem is minor and the same will be alright automatically and they updated the mobile’s software by their computer. On 12.10.2017, the display touch screen of the phone stopped working and became disfigured. He again reported the matter to opposite party no. 2 and this time his phone had been repaired by opposite party no. 2 by their power-charger. After that complainant continued to use the phone but the same did not work properly and complainant reported the same to opposite party no. 2 many times but the said fault could not be removed properly. On 12.04.2018, the display touch screen of the phone stopped working completely and complainant reported this fact to opposite party on 14.04.2018. They examined all internal parts of the mobile and returned the same to the complainant after few hours but the display-touch-screen of the said phone did not work properly and the complainant reported again to the opposite party on 16.04.2018 and the opposite party no. 2 told the complainant that they are unable to make this defective phone in order and finally refused to entertain the complainant/service request under warranty and handed over the defective mobile phone to complainant and expressed their inability to help the complainant. There is clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund of the cost of the mobile set i.e. Rs.6900/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum with compensation of Rs.60,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.15,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that the product when brought for inspection by the complainant, the authorized service technician of the opposite party no. 1 duly informed about the customer induced damage in the product and also furnished the technical report by way of job sheet which clearly establishes that the touch was not working as a result of damage induced by the complainant. Therefore the warranty terms are automatically invalidated and as a result the complainant will have to bear the expenses of repair. The complainant has alleged that the product was having manufacturing defect to which he has not produced any evidence which could established that the product was having manufacturing defect. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No. 3 in his reply has submitted that answering respondent had only sold the mobile phone and if any fault arisen therein under warranty then only company/opposite party no. 1 and its authorized service center/opposite party no. 2 are responsible for repair, replacement or refund of payment or for any other appropriate solution etc. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied by opposite party no. 3. However, notice sent to opposite party no. 2 received back duly served but none has appeared on behalf of him and as such opposite party no. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.10.2018.
4. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex. CW-1/A, documents Ex.C-1 to Ex. C-3 and closed the same on 16.09.2019. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-4 and closed his evidence on 17.03.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.3 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW-3/A and closed his evidence on 18.12.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by complainant as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, the complainant had purchased the mobile on dated 21.08.2017. As per the complainant the fault in the mobile appeared just after five days, which was repaired by the opposite party No.2 and thereafter it became defective on 12.10.2017 but no job sheet was provided by the opposite parties. After that defect appeared on 12.04.2018. To prove the same complainant has placed on record copy of job sheet Ex.C2/Ex.C3, as per which there was defect of Charger Shell Heated Deformation, Other system Freeze fault and the product is shown In Warranty. But the same could not be repaired by the opposite parties within warranty period on the ground that the alleged defect had customer induced damage which is not covered under the warranty terms. But the same is not proved with any authentic evidence. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.1 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 30% depreciation on it i.e. to pay Rs.6900/- less 2070/-=Rs.4830/-
7. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the compliant and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.4830/-(Rupees four thousand eight hundred and thirty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.08.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite party No.1 at the time of making the payment by the opposite party.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.07.2022
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Shyam Lal, Member
