BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.390 of 2017
Date of Instt. 13.10.2017
Date of Decision: 10.08.2021
Mansi Malhotra D/o Sh. Naveen Malhotra R/o H. No. 332-New Baldev Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Swastik Computers, Shop No.1, Level-2, Monika Tower, Milap Chowk, Jalandhar, Punjab PIN: 144001 (Authorized Service centre MI Mobile) through its Manager.
2. Xioami Pvt. Ltd, 5th Floor, Delta Block, Embassy Tech Sq., Marathahalli- Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubeesanahalli, Bengaluru, Karnatka 560103 through its Manager.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Robin Budhiraja, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
OP No.1 Ex-parte.
Sh. Aditya Jain, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.2.
Order
Kuljit Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant against OPs on the averments that she had purchased one mobile handset model no. Redmi 3S Prime Gold 32 GB on 12.10.2016 vide invoice no. 1476257096583946824 from online website of MI for Rs.8,999/-. She had faced problem regarding this handset after four months from the date of its purchase. On this, she had approached OP no.1 and OP no.1 has update the software and handover the handset to brother of complainant with assurance that if same problem occur again then OP no.1 will replaced the mother board of the handset. In the month of May, 2017 the same problem has occurred and she approached OP no.1 and it has taken the set in his custody for replacement of mother board as mentioned in job sheet dated 26.05.2017 vide job sheet no.(WXINI705260005275). After some days OP no.1 has changed the mother board of the handset without any charges as handset was under warranty at that time. After passing of two months, she again faced same problem and visited service centre in July 2017 but OP no.1 again taken the handset for repair. After two days, OP no.1 has made call to complainant that motherboard of this mobile set was already changed and there is no chance of repair and OP no.1 demanded seven days more time to replace the handset with new handset from the company but till today OPs have failed to do the same. The complainant also sent a legal notice upon OPs on 08.09.2017 but of no use. Due to above said act and conduct of OPs, she had filed the present complaint and prayed that OP be directed to replace the handset with new one or refund the price, besides Rs.20,000/- as compensation/damage and Rs.10,000/- as legal expenses.
2. Notice sent to OP no.1 on 24.10.2017 but none has appeared on behalf of OP no.1 in spite of service. Therefore, OP no.1 proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.11.2017 passed by this Commission.
3. Notice sent to OP no.2, Sh. Aditya Jain, Advocate appeared and filed its reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred that complainant purchased a phone Redmi 3S Prime Mobile Phone for Rs.8,999/- under the warranty terms and conditions. On 26.05.2017, complainant approached authorized service centre of OP no.2 with issues in the product. On examination by service Engineer, it was ascertained that the product was facing issues related to auto power in the product. The complainant has also not provided any evidence to prove or demonstrate manufacturing defects in the product. OP no.2 denied any deficiency in service on its part. OP no.2 is entirely sufficient and consistent with the stated warranty obligations as well as with established principles of consumer protection law in India. Rest of the averments made by the complainant was denied by OP no.2 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5. On the other hand, OP no.2 tendered in evidence copies of documents Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/5 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully as well as written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant.
6. The complainant has tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-A on the record. She alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Ex.C-1 is copy of legal notice served upon OPs on 22.08.2017. Ex.C-2 is copy of postal receipt thereof. Ex.C-3 is copy of tax invoice, in which the total payment of mobile was mentioned as Rs.8,999/- Ex.C-4 is copy of service record Ex.C-5 is copy of service order.
7. To refute this evidence, OPs tendered in evidence copy of tax invoice as Ex.OP-2/1. Ex.OP-2/2 is warranty conditions. Ex.OP-2/3 is copy of warranty statement. ExOP-2/4 is copy of service record.
8. It is an established fact that the complainant purchased one mobile handset model no. Redmi 3S Prime Gold 32 GB on dated 12.10.2016 vide invoice no.1476257096583946824 from online website of OPs for Rs.8,999/-. The complainant has faced problem regarding this handset after four months from the date of its purchase. The problem has occurred again and again in the handset. OP no.1 has taken the set for replacement of mother board as also mentioned in the job sheet dated 26.05.2017. After passing of two months complainant again faced same problem. OP no.1 has made a call to complainant that motherboard of this mobile set was already changed and there is no chance of repair. OP no.1 demanded seven days more time to replace the handset with new handset from company i.e. OP no.2 but till today OPs have not able to replace the handset after number of repeated requests. The complainant also served a legal notice upon OPs but of no use.
9. On the other hand, OP no.2 denied any deficiency in service on its part. It was pleaded by OPs that the product was sold to the complainant as per warranty terms and conditions as applicable.
10. From perusal of record, it has been transpired that documents produced by OP no.2 i.e. Ex.OP-2/1 , Ex.OP-2/2 Ex.OP-2/3 Ex.OP-2/4, Ex.OP-3/5 are not properly exhibited and not readable properly. It has also noticed that these documents also not signed by any official authority. Statement regarding tendering of documents by counsel for OP no.2 also not placed on record.
11. The complainant purchased the mobile in question on 12.10.2016 from OP no.2 on online for payment of Rs.8,999/- . The problem has occurred in the mobile in question in the month of May 2017 (after one year from purchase of the mobile set). Again faced problem in July, 2017. After two days OP no.1 has made call to complainant that the motherboard of this mobile set was already changed and there is no chance of repair and OP no.1 demanded more seven days time to replace the handset with new one from the company but failed to do so. It was established that manufacturing defect in the mobile in question still persistent after repair. OP No.2. It is crystal clear that there was some manufacturing defect in the mobile in question, this fact is clear from Para No.8 of the written reply filed by OP no.2. OPs admitted that as per warranty terms and conditions, Xioami shall provide free of charge repair or replacement services for defective parts. No other remedies (such as for example, refund) are provided for under limited warranty conditions. The warranty period is mentioned as one year in Ex.OP-2/1 on the record. The mobile was purchased by the complainant in the year 2016 and she faced problem in the mobile set in the year 2017 after one year. The warranty period is one year and one year has completed in the year 2017. When complainant faced the problem in the handset, she approached OPs and OPs made the needful from time to time.
12. From perusal of file, it has transpired that the problem in the mobile handset occurred from time to time. This fact was admitted by OPs that defects related to LED missing color and other sensor fault in the product were duly repaired by the technicians of the authorized centre of OP no.2 as per standard warranty conditions. But problem was not removed from the mobile in question from OP no.2.
13. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and OP no.2 is directed to repair the mobile set in question of the complainant and the complainant is directed to deliver the mobile hand set in question to OP no.2 within 7 days from receipt of copy of this order, in case the mobile set not repairable or same model out of stock in the market or in a company, then in the alternative remedy OP No.2 will refund the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.8,999/- within 15 days to the complainant. Further, OP No.2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.
14. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
15. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
10th of August 2021
Kuljit Singh
(President)
Jyotsna
(Member)
