Haryana

StateCommission

A/380/2018

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SOM NATH AND OTHER - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

06 Dec 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                First Appeal No.           :         380 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution        :         28.03.2018

                                                Date of Decision                   :         06.12.2018

 

 

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, 5^th Floor, Block Delta, B Block, Embassy Tech Square, Inside Cessna, Business Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Kadubeesanhalli Vathur Hobli, Bangalore-560103.

          …… Appellant

Versus

 

1. Som Dutt Sharma s/o Shri Dharampal Sharma, R/o Charanjiv Colony, Ambala Road, Kaithal
2. Veeraa International, Shop No.S209, Padma City Mall, Karnal Road, Kaithal
3. Jyoti Mobiles (Xiaomi Service Centre), Shop No. 4, Opp. Jaat School Ground, Karnal Road, Kaithal 136027.

……. Respondents

 

CORAM:             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Presiding Member.

 

Present:              Mr. Devinder Kumar, counsel for the appellant.

                             Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, counsel for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2.

None for respondent No.3.

                            

O R D E R

 

DIWAN SINGH CHAUHAN, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

                             The present appeal has been decided by me in view of the order passed by Hon’ble President of the State Commission conveyed to me vide Endst. No. 195 dated 25.01.2018 whereby I have been authorized to decide the cases singly in Additional Bench-II.

                             This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by complainant against the OPs has been allowed. The observations given by District Forum are under:-

“From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased a mobile set IN30-REDMI NOTE 3 GOLD from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.67 dt. 14.7.2016 for Rs.12,000/- (Ex.C1). As per the complainant, the said mobile set has stopped working abruptly and is having defect and the complainant contacted OP No.2 to resolve these grievances vide Service Order dt. 26.5.2017. Further, as per the complainant, the said mobile set again became defective and the complainant again visited to OPs. Ld. counsel for the OPs contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering respondents as OPs removed the defects in the mobile in question. The complainant has to prove his case himself by producing cogent evidence. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 and Mark CA. Whereas, on the other hand, the OPs have also failed to prove on the file that the defect of the mobile set in question was removed by them and the mobile set in question has no manufacturing defect. The version of the complainant regarding defects in the mobile set in question has been supported by affidavit, whereas, on the other hand, as already stated above; the OPs No.2 & 3 have not produced any evidence to prove their contentions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the mobile set in question of the complainant became defective and he approached the OPs various times, but the Ops have failed to resolve the grievance of the complainant. Hence, the OPs have committed an act of unfair trade practice, so the OPs are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide bill/Invoice No.67 dated 14.7.2016. However, it is made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the OPs, then the OPs shall refund Rs.12,000/- ‘the cost of mobile set to the complainant. The OPs are also burdened with costs of Rs.2,200/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.”

                             Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased a mobile IN30-REDMI NOTE 3 GOLD from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.67 dt. 14.7.2016 for Rs.12,000/-. It is further alleged that the said mobile set has stopped working abruptly and is having defect. It is further alleged that he visited the OP No.2 about the said defect, who kept the same and issued job card. It is further alleged that after two days, he visited again to OP No.2 for taking the mobile set, who told that motherboard has been changed and assured the said mobile set further will be working properly. It is further alleged that after two days, the said problem was again procured. It is further alleged that he again visited to OP No.1 to replace the same or return the price of it, but OP has refused to do so. It is further alleged that due to sudden breaking of above said mobile, he had to suffer a lot in business.  The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amount to deficiency in service.

Upon notice OP No.1 did not appear and proceeded against ex parte vide order dt. 24.8.2017.

OPs No.2 & 3 filed written statement and contended that on 26.5.2017, when the complainant approached the OP No.3 and on examination by the Service Engineer, it was ascertained that the product was facing issues related to network, touch panel not working and system freeze on standby and those issues were detected and product was delivered to the complainant without any charge under warranty and name of OP No.3 as reflected in the memorandum of parties is inappropriate. Complainant did not provide a fair opportunity to the OP No.3 to examine any further defects in the products by submitting the product for repair post May 2017 and instead directly chose to file the present complaint and prayer for dismissal of the complaint.

Both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective claims.

On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.

Aggrieved with the impugned order, appellant-opposite party No. 3 has come up in appeal.  Hence this appeal.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 & 3.  I did not think it appropriate to adjourn this appeal indefinitely, and therefore, I proceed to decide this appeal and going through the case file.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1 and perused the case file thoroughly.

                             The counsel of the appellant-opposite party No. 3 contended that the District Forum has not considered the fact that on 26.5.2017, when the complainant/respondent No.1 approached the appellant/OP No.3 and on examination by the Service Engineer, it was ascertained that the product was facing issues related to network, touch panel not working and system freeze on standby and those issues were detected and product was delivered to the complainant without any charge under warranty and prayed for appeal of the appellant may be allowed and order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the District Forum may be set aside.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant contended that the mobile set has stopped working abruptly and was having defect and he contacted service centre to resolve his grievances but all in vain. The counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant further contended that the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the appeal of the appellant.

I have gone through the facts and circumstance of the case evidence adduced on record by the parties.

It is admitted fact that mobile set of the complainant stopped working and to resolve these grievances he visited respondent No.2/Op No.2 on 26.05.2017 which was repaired by the respondent No.2/OP No.2 but the mobile set again became defective. The complainant/respondent No.1 produced his affidavit EX.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 and Mark CA which proves the case of the complainant/respondent No.1.

In this view of the matter I am of the considered view that the District Forum has taken the correct view by allowing the complaint and needs no interference.

Finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.

The statutory amount of Rs.7,100/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced                                                                                 Diwan Singh Chauhan,

06.12.2018                                                                                       Presiding Member

                                                                                                    Addl. Bench-IInd