Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 484
Instituted on : 18.09.2019
Decided on : 22.02.2024.
Mukesh Kumar age 32 years, s/o Kanhaiya Lal R/o Quarter No.76, Police Training College, Sunaria Near District Jail, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Shreyash Retail Pvt. Ltd. A-285. Main Bhisam Pitamaha Marg, Defense Colony, 1st Floor, 2nd Landing, New Delhi-110024 through its Director
2. Xiomi Technology India Pvt Ltd. 4th Floor. Ozone Mahay Tech Park, Hohganandra Bangalore(Karnataka)-560068.
3. MI Service Centre. Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Proprietor
…….Respondent/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Puneet Chahal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Opposite party No.3 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had purchased a MI-X14LQ53 Mobile phone from respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs.13999/- vide Invoice No.FAAALJ2000616871 dated 26/6/2019. The respondent No.1 assured the complainant that in case of any default occurred in the mobile phone, one year free warranty/replacement will be provided by the company. But just after few days of the purchase of above-said mobile phone it started creating problem. The phone was having hanging problem. The complainant contacted the customer care centre of respondent No.2 on 27/8/2019, but the concerned officials refused to repair the said mobile by making false excuses that phone is damaged and is out of warranty. The opposite parties are legally bound to replace the same with short stipulated period. The respondents are unnecessarily harassing and humiliating the complainant and this is quite deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of his mobile phone i.e. Rs.13999/- alongwith interest 18% per annum from the date of purchase of mobile till the date of actual realization and opposite parties may also be directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that any warranty/guarantee related with product is only provided by the manufacturer of the product and not by the opposite party. The complainant himself has admitted to the fact in the contents in of the Para.3 that the complainant contacted with regard to the alleged issue beyond the stipulated period of 10 (Ten) days policy of the opposite party. Even otherwise it is clarified that the opposite party has no facility or knowledge to ascertain whether the product in issue in the present complaint is defective or has manufacturing defects and hence, the complainant should approach only the manufacturer or the service centre for redressal of his grievance with regard to the alleged issue. Further, the fact needs to be highlighted that though the opposite party is not liable to provide any kind of after sale services, the complainant was rightly directed to approach the service centre i.e. opposite Party No.3 or the manufacturer i.e. Opposite Party No.2 to avail after sale services as only the manufacturer is liable for the same. Complainant is not entitled to claim any relief or compensation from the opposite party No.1.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that complainant was duly informed that the product has suffered physical damage and was also requested to pay repair costs for the replacement/repairing of the parts of product in accordance with the charges which has been enumerated at Respondent No. 2's website as any form of customer induced damages are not covered under standard warranty terms & conditions applicable to the product. The complainant however refused to pay the repair costs and the product was duly returned to the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant has not produced any evidence admissible or otherwise to prove manufacturing defects in the product. Mere allegations and unsupported averments cannot be held against the respondent No. 2 and the complainant is required to prove manufacturing defects in the product. However, notice sent to opposite party No.3 was received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.11.2019 of this Commission.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on 21.06.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on 09.09.2022. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case the complainant had purchased the mobile on 26.06.2019 for Rs.13999./-. His mobile became defective within a short period and he contacted the service centre of opposite party on 27.08.2019 i.e. within two months of its purchase. As per job sheet Ex.C2, dated 27.08.2019, there was problem of ‘touch working on its own’. But the mobile was returned to the complainant on the ground that : “the handset is physically damaged, so cannot consider in warranty as per Xiomi policy”. To prove the fact opposite party has placed on record photograph of screen of mobile Ex.R3. On the other hand, complainant in his additional evidence has tendered photographs of the screen of mobile Ex.C3 to Ex.C5. But as per these photographs there is no physical damage to the mobile in question. Hence the non repair of mobile within warranty period by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. As the touch of the screen was working on its own. Hence there is manufacturing defect in the mobile in question and the opposite party No.2 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to refund the price of Rs.13999/-(Rupees thirteen thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% from the date of announcement of this order till its realisation to the complainant.
7. 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:
22.02.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
