Complaint No: 184 of 2019.
Date of Institution: 03.06.2019.
Date of order: 23.02.2024.
Saurav Kumar Son of Kala @ Ashok Kumar, resident of House No. 30, Ward No.15, Mohalla Prem Nagar, Near Post Office Chowk, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
….......Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Redmi (Xiaomi) Service Centre, College Road, (Service Center Code: XMIN 2032), VK Traders College Road, Punjab and Sindh Bank, First Floor, Gurdaspur, Punjab – 143521.
2. TVS Electronics Limited, C/o Delhivery Private Ltd. Khasra No. 14/21/ 212, 16/3/2, 4/2, 5/2/1, 6/2, 7, Modi Warehouse Darbari Pur, Hassanpur Road, Tehsil Manesar, Gurugram – 122001.
3. Redmi, Registered Office at: Jaya Lakshmi Estate, New No. 29 (Old No. 8), Haddows Road, Chennai – 600006.
4. Xiaomi Corporate Office, Address: Xiaomi Technology India Private Ltd, 8th Floor, Tower – 1, Umiya Business Bay Marathahalli, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bangalore Karnataka.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer's Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Bhuvnesh Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.4: Sh.Amit Babbar, Advocate.
Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 exparte.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Saurav Kumar, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Redmi (Xiaomi) Service Centre Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Mobile Phone (Redmi 5 – 3 GB RAM, 32 GB ROM, Black with IMEI/Serial No: 869200032010081 from the OP No. 2 while paying an amount of Rs.9,298/- by online purchase, who issued the bill for the same dated 04.06.2018, vide order No. 5180604288141 16901, by mode of Online Purchase. It is pleaded that the above said Mobile Phone stopped working after a few days of its purchase and the same was handed over to the OP No. 1 for getting him setting right, for which he assured that it will be set right and the same will be returned to the complainant after a week or so. It is further pleaded that the above said Mobile Phone stopped working in the month of April, 2019 and the complainant visited the concern of the OP No. 1 for 7-8 times for the above said purpose, but the OP No. 1 kept him an arm’s length and after that on dated 25.04.2019, the complainant got repaired the said mobile phone from the OP No. 1 and OP No. 1 issued a service record invoice with the description of Power in Fault, and repaired the same, but on the next day, the said mobile phone stopped working and the complainant again visited the said premises of the OP No. 1 for the same, but the employees of the OP No. 1 kept him at an arms' length and threw the complainant out of the said office by saying that the complainant can do anything what he wants and also directed him not to come again in the said office again, for the said job. It is further pleaded that the education of the complainant is fully dependant upon the said Mobile Phone as he receives his practicals and assignments and other readable sessions through the help of the said mobile phone and he faced loss of Rupees not less than Rs. 25,000/-. It is further pleaded that the complainant has requested the opposite parties to admit his legal and genuine claim, but till now no proper response has been given to the complainant. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to set right the said Mobile Phone or replace that one with new one or replacement of such mobile phone without any delay and further to pay the damages of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Opposite party No.1 did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.07.2019. Similarly, opposite parties No. 2 and 3 did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.07.2019.
4. Upon notice, the opposite party No.4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply, stating therein that the opposite party No. 1 is an Authorized Service Centre of the answering OP No. 4. The opposite party No. 2 is a seller / vendor of Products manufactured by the answering OP No.4 and the opposite party No. 3 is an unknown entity. It is pleaded that the answering OP No. 4 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 Building Orchid, Block E, Embassy Tech Village, Devarabisanahalli, Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560103. The answering OP No. 4 is engaged in the marketing, sale and service inter alia of mobile phones in India under the brands "Mi" and "Xiaomi". It is further pleaded that the complainant Mr. Saurav Kumar has allegedly purchased a Mobile Phone ("Product") sold under the Mi brand namely, Redmi – 5 mobile phone for Rs.9,298/- having IMEI No. 869200032010081. All “Mi” and “Xiaomi” brand mobile phones sold within India are sold under a standard 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. It is further pleaded that on August 16, 2018 the complainant approached the authorized service center of the answering OP No. 4 with issues related to the Product. The complainant informed the technician of the authorized service center of the answering OP No. 4 that the Product was facing issue related to "Flash Light" in the Product. The service engineer duly recorded the issue in service sheet and provided to the complainant. It is further pleaded that after examining and reviewing the Product at the service center, the defects related to the Product was duly repaired by the technicians of the authorized service center of the answering OP No. 4 as per the standard warranty conditions and the Product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition as can be ascertain from Service Job Sheet No. WXIN1808160015686. It is further pleaded that on January 12, 2019 the complainant again approached the authorized service center of the answering OP No. 4 with issues related to the Product. The complainant informed the technician of the authorized service center of the answering OP No. 4 that the Product was facing issue related to "No Vibration" in the Product. The service engineer duly recorded the issue in service sheet and provided to the complainant. It is further pleaded that after examining and reviewing the Product at the service center, the defects related to the Product was duly repaired by the technicians of the authorized service center of the answering OP No. 4 as per the standard warranty conditions and the Product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition as can be ascertain from Service Job Sheet No. WXIN1901120006822. It is further pleaded that on April 25, 2019 the complainant again approached the authorized service center of the answering OP No. 4 with issues related to the Product. The complainant informed the technician of the authorized service center of the answering OP No. 4 that the Product was facing issue related to "Receiver no sound in non-calling state" in the Product. The service engineer duly recorded the issue in service sheet and provided to the complainant. It is further pleaded that after examining and reviewing the Product at the service center, the defects related to the Product was duly repaired by the technicians of the authorized service center of the answering OP No. 4 as per the standard warranty conditions and the Product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition as can be ascertain from Service Job Sheet No. WXIN1904250004555. It is further pleaded that the complainant in the present case has in fact not presented any evidence (admissible or sufficient) to demonstrate that the alleged defects in the present complaint are a consequence of defects in the Product and not a consequence of use or mishandling by the complainant. It is well established in law (including in Managing Person, Sri Sai Ram Motors vs. Maggidi Srinivas, F.A No. 853 of 2012) that a relief or remedy may not be granted without evidence pointing to a manufacturing defect. It also clearly provides an indication that this complaint is nothing, but a strategy of the complainant to get a refund and unnecessarily harass the answering OP No. 4 with this frivolous and concocted litigation. Mere allegations and unsupported averments in the complaint regarding manufacturing defects in the Product cannot be held against the answering OP No. 4 and the complainant is required to prove manufacturing defects in the Product. It is further pleaded that the complainant's allegations regarding deficiency of service also lack any basis and are entirely untenable. The authorized service center of the answering OP No. 4 duly repaired the defects in the Product on all occasions and delivered the Product in proper working condition. It is further pleaded that the answering OP No. 4 respectfully submits that the complainant on all occasions raised no objection at the time of delivery of the Product to him clearly implying that the Product was delivered to the complainant in proper working condition. Further, the complainant did not provide any proof that the Product was not repaired properly and is having any issue whatsoever. It is further pleaded that if the complainant had submitted the Product to the any of the authorized service center of the answering OP No. 4 for any further defects persisting in the Product, the answering OP No. 4's authorized service center would have repaired all the defects in the Product or replaced any defective part as per the standard warranty terms and conditions applicable to the Product. There is accordingly no deficiency of service on the part of the answering opposite party No.4 or any of its agents.
On merits, the opposite party No.4 denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Saurav Kumar, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sameer BS Rao, (Authorized Representative of Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka) as Ex.OP-4/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-4/1 to Ex.OP-4/4 alongwith reply.
7. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
8. Written arguments filed by the opposite party No.4 but not filed by the complainant.
9. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased one mobile hand set vide tax invoice Ex.C1. However, from the very beginning the said mobile set was having one problem or the other and after repairing the mobile for 2-3 times on 25.04.2019 the service centre refused to repair the mobile set without any reason. The mobile set is having manufacturing defect and failure to repair the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
10. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 remained exparte.
11. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.4 has argued that there is no report of any technical expert to prove the manufacturing defect alleged by the complainant. However, it is argued that mobile set of the complainant being within warranty was repaired by the service centre of opposite party No.4 firstly on 16.08.2018 vide Ex.OP-4/3 for flash keep lightning on camera, second time on 12.01.2019 vide Ex.OP-4/4 for no vibration and thereafter on 25.04.2019 vide annexure 'E' for power on fault and thereafter complainant never visited the service centre of the opposite party No.4 and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.4 and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the complainant and opposite party No.4 and gone through the record.
13. To prove his case complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copy of tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of service record Ex.C2 whereas opposite party No.4 has placed on record affidavit of Sameer BS Rao Ex.OP-4/A, copy of warranty card Ex.OP-4/1 and Ex.OP-4/2, copy of service record Ex.OP-4/3 and Ex.OP-4/4.
14. It is admitted fact that complainant has purchased mobile Redmi 5-3 GB RAM, 32 GB ROM, Black, with IMEI/SN: 869200032010081 from opposite party No.2. It is further admitted fact that said mobile had developed problem and on all the three occasions the defect in the mobile set was rectified by the service centre of the opposite parties. The only disputed issued for adjudication before this Commission is whether the said mobile set having manufacturing defect and the complainant is entitled to replacement of the same.
15. Perusal of service record placed on file by complainant Ex.C2 and opposite party No.4 annexure 'E' shows that within a span of 8-9 months the complainant had to visit the service centre of the opposite party No.4 for one problem or the other and although the said problems were rectified by the service centre. However, the occurrence of repeated problems within one year after purchase itself shows that mobile set was having defect and could not function properly and not gave proper service to the complainant for which the mobile was purchased. We are of the view that although there is no report of technical expert to prove the manufacturing defect but we are of the further view that opposite party No.4 was at liberty to get the mobile hand set examined from their expert but since no such effort was made by the opposite party No.4 itself shows that opposite party No.4 was deficient in service being provided to its customers.
16. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.4 is directed to hand over new mobile hand set of same price to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, it is made clear that if mobile hand set is not replaced within prescribed period of 30 days mentioned above then opposite party No.4 shall refund the amount of Rs.9298/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of receipt of copy of this order till realization. Complainant shall also hand over the old mobile hand set to the opposite party No.4 after compliance of the order.
17. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
18. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Feb. 23, 2024 Member.
*YP*
