Haryana

Ambala

CC/340/2017

Jasbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shreyash Retail Private Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 340 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 03.10.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 06.06.2018

 

 

Jasbir Singh s/o Ramesh Chand, (Shiv Electrical Sambhalka Road, Mithapur Saha), District Ambala, Permanent resident of VPO-Kesri, Tehsil & District Ambala (Haryana).

……. Complainant.

 

Vs.

 

1.       Shreyash Retail Private Limited, E-29 Ring Road, South Ex-II, Opposite Park, New Delhi-110049(Through its Manager)

2.       HCL Service Ltd, 16/2 Main Prem Nagar Road, Adjoining OBC Bank, Ambala City (Haryana) (authorized service centre). (Through its Manager/Prop/Partner).

3.       HCL Service Ltd, (A subsidiary of HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD) Ground Floor, Parashnath Building, Sector14,Old Gurgaon Road, Opp to Motorola Building, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana India. (Through its Manager)

4.       XIAOMI Technology India Pvt Ltd XIAOMI India, By Rising Stars Mobile Pvt Ltd, 380Belerica Road Siri City Siddam Agra Harm Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandel, Chittor District Ander Pardesh-517541 (Through its MD)

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender  Kumar, Member.            

                  

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Harjot Singh, counsel for OP Nos. 2 & 3.

Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for OP No.4.

OP No. 1 ex parte v.o.d. 28.11.2017.

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased MI Redmi 3S Mobile through deliver by Flipkart on line vide bill no.ID-OD107613407643027000 dated 16.11.2016 for a sum of Rs.6,999/- bearing IMEI-861428038521309 along with one year warranty from the OP No.1. The above said mobile phone was working properly but on 26.09.2017 as when  the above said mobile was getting  charging  at the electric board then the complainant saw that  the above said mobile has been charging  or not working properly then on 26.9.2017 the complainant went to the OP No.2 and told the problem  then the rep of OP No.2 told to the complainant  that his handset  has been blast  or it cannot be repair then the complainant  told that his mobile is in warranty period  then rep of OP No.2 refued to the complainant for repair of the above mobile set. The rep of the OP No.2 issued a job sheet and received Rs.118/- for charge of open the mobile set for checking the fault. The complainant requested to Service Manager also so many times, but no satisfied reply given to the complainant from the side of OP No.2. Due to the above said act and conduct of the Ops, complainant suffered a huge  mental agony, harassment and monetary loss. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notice issued to Op No.1 but none has turned up on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.11.2017. Upon notice, OP Nos. 2 & 3 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that they always provided best of its services to the complainant and the said handset was checked and it was found that the said handset got blast while charging battery was deformed and some sharp tool has been used to open the said handset whereby damaging the internal part.   Hence, the said handset does not fall under the warranty conditions of the XIAOMI Mobiles and the same was conveyed to the complainant on the same day of the submission of the said handset i.e. on 20.09.2017. Moreover, the complainant never approached OP No.3.

Upon notice, OP No. 4 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that the complainant was duly advised by the authorized service centre of the OP No.4 to pay the estimated costs for repair since any kind of customer under the warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product. Additionally, since the warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product clearly states that if the product suffers customer induced damage at the hands of the complainant, the product will automatically be held to be “Out of warranty”. He further stated that the technicians of the authorized service centre of the OP No.4 duly informed the complainant about the physical damage and the estimated costs for repairing the product since the product out of warranty owing to physical damage to the product, The complainant however refused to pay costs for repair of the physical damage and hence the product was delivered back to the complainant without repair. So there is no deficiency in service on part of Ops and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.                         To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-3 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP Nos.2 & 3 tendered affidavit as Annexure RW-2/A with documents as Annexure R-2/1 to R-2/2 and close their evidence. Counsel for OP No.4 tendered affidavit as Annexure R-4/A along with documents as Annexure R-4/1 to R-4/2 and closed his evidence. 4.           We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                         The case of complainant is that he had purchased a MI Redmi 3S Mobile through deliver by Flipkart online vide Bill No.ID-OD10761340763027000 dated 16.11.2016 for a sum of Rs. 6,999/- bearing IMEI-861428038521309 along with one year warranty as Annexure C-1. It is proved on the file that the mobile in question has been become physically damage/blast within warranty period as per Job sheet Annexure  C-3 which shows that “Handset blast code, as per technical ELS and this can’t be covered under warranty” The complainant approached to the OP No.2/service centre for rectification of the mobile in question who gave the estimate for repairing charges of the defective parts but complainant refused to get the same repaired on payment basis but the complainant has paid Rs.118 to the OP No.2 for open the mobile set for checking the fault. The OP No.2 has also come with the plea that the warranty become void as the LCD/Screen of mobile in question was damaged which occurred due to fault of the customer and the complainant has to bear the estimated cost for repairing but it is strange that as to why he has reached at the conclusion that the warranty of the product in question has expired. Rather, the act of the OP No.2,3 & 4 shows that they are intentionally avoiding to provide  after sale service to the complainant.  The version of complainant duly supported by his affidavit reveals that the defects of the mobile set could not be rectified by Ops within its warranty period and even it was returned back without getting the necessary work done. Undisputedly, the handset blast/physical damage during warranty period, therefore, it was the duty of the OPs to get the defects removed free of cost. Moreover, it is misconceived notion that any goods can be ordered to be replaced or the cost can be ordered to be refunded only if it suffers from manufacturing defect/liquid damage because there is no such concept of goods suffering from manufacturing defect enshrined by the provision of Consumer Protection Act.  Consumer Protection Act only defines the word ‘defect’ by way of Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act which is to the following effect:

“Defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.”

From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clearly established that the OPs are deficient in providing the services and have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant as per his satisfaction. It is enough on the record that the set in question got blast within warranty period and the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

7.                     In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To pay the invoice amount Rs. 6,999/-  as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.

 (ii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony  alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :06.06.2018                                 

 

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)               (D.N. ARORA)

                   Member                                     President