Haryana

Karnal

CC/388/2020

Mohit Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vinay Chahal

21 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 388 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.25.09.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:21.02.2022

 

Mohit Sharma, resident of village Bibipur Jattan, tehsil Indri, District Karnal. Mobile no.96711-12286. Aadhar no.257475344303.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The Managing Director, Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Khasra no.14/24/212, 16/3/2, 4/2, 5/2/1, 6/2/7, Modi WareHouse, Darbaripur Road, opp. HDFC Bank, Hasanpur, Guraon.

 

2.     The authorized person, Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. SCO no.25, 1^st floor, Mugal Canal, Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

             

 

 Argued by: Shri Vinay Chahal, counsel for complainant.

Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for OPS.

              

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased an LED online through order no.519033065512276302, vide invoice no.5298486 dated 30.03.2019 for a total sum of Rs.22,999/- manufactured by OP no.1 under the brand prescribed as Xiaomi “MI”. Complainant received the said LED in his premises and made the payment in cash to the delivery boy. At the time of purchase, OP no.1 assured the complainant that it is a product of good quality and free from all defects and is under warranty for the period of one year during which a free replacement or the amount will be refunded, if any defect occurred in the product. It is further averred that complainant extended the warranty for another one year and paid a sum of Rs.699/- on account of extended warranty for a period of another one year and as such, in this way, the LED was under warranty for a period of two years. After sometime, complainant found that the LED is not working properly and is not giving a good performance. In the month of December, 2019, the LED became out of order and complainant made a complaint to OP no.2 and the engineers of OP no.2 visited the house of complainant and set it right. After about four months, the LED again became out of order and complainant made a complaint with OP no.2. The engineers of OP no.2 visited the house of complainant and tried their level best to set it right but they could not satisfy the complainant and stated that it is an internal defect and the same cannot be rectified by OP no.2. On 15.07.2020, the LED became totally out of order. Complainant again approached the OP no.2 for repair of the same but engineers visited to his house shows their inability to set it right. The engineers of OP no.2 stated that LED cannot be repaired it is not possible for them to rectify the same. Complainant requested the engineers of OP no.2 to issue the job sheet but they flatly refused to issue the same. On 01.08.2020, complainant again approached the OP no.2 and requested to replace the LED because it is having a manufactured defect and not repairable but OP no.2 has flatly refused to entertain the complaint of complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and OP no.1 filed its written version stating therein that complainant has purchased a Television sold under the Mi brand namely MI LED TV A4 Pro 43 inch, on March 30, 2019 for the price of Rs.22,999/-. The product sold and delivered to the complainant has serial no.19310/580080797. Complainant has purchased Mi extended warranty of one year for the price of Rs.699/-. On 03.04.2019 complainant made request for installation of the Mi TV purchased on March, 2019. The service engineer of the authorized service centre visited complainant’s address and duly installed the product and gave proper demo of the product to the complainant. On 20.04.2019, the complainant made a service request in connection with issue in the TV. After receiving service request from the complainant, the service e technician of the OP no.1 visited complainant’s place to examine the product for defect. After examining and reviewing the product, the technician of authorized service centre of OP no.1 ascertained that there was no defect in the TV but set-up box was having certain issue as can be ascertained from service order no.TVIN1904200002288. On 08.11.2019, 05.02.2020 and 09.02.2020 complainant again made service request in connection with issue in the product. After receiving the request of the complainant, on all occasions, the service technician of the OP no.1 visited the complainant’s place and after examining and reviewing the product, duly repaired the product on all three occasions in accordance with warranty terms. On 15.07.2020 complainant again requested for a call of repair of the product. After receiving the service request from the complainant, the service technician of the OP no.1 duly visited the complainant’s place and after examining and reviewing the product, it was ascertained that the product has been exposed to liquid by the complainant due to which the product is malfunctioning. The technician of the authorized service centre of OP no.1 duly informed the complainant about the customer induced/liquid damage in the product and also requested the complainant to pay repair costs since any customer induced/liquid damage is not covered under standard warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product. Complainant refused to pay any repair cost. On 27.07.2020 and 29.07.2020, complainant again raised service request and after receiving request OP no.1 requested the complainant to confirm that whether the complainant is willing to pay the repair cost since the product has been damaged by the complainant (components of TV exposed to liquid/water as can be ascertained from photographs) not covered under warranty. However, the complainant again refused to pay any repair cost and accordingly the repair request of complainant was closed. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have  been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             On 22.01.2021, learned counsel for OPs suffered his separate statement to the effect that written version filed by OP no.1 be read as written version of OP no.2.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, tax invoice Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, delivery card Ex.C3, email Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, messages Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 05.07.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sameer BS Rao Ex.OPW1/A, warranty statement Ex.OP1, service record dated 04.03.2019, 20.04.2019, 05.02.2020 Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4, photos OP5, service record dated 15.07.2020, 22.07.2020, 08.11.2019 Ex.OP6 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence on 14.10.2021 by suffering separate statement.

7.              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             The complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased a LED of the OPs company, on dated 30.03.2019 to the tune of Rs.22,999/- with the warranty of one year. After sometimes of its purchase LED become out of order. The complainant contacted to the OP no.2 i.e. service centre of the company. Engineer of the OP no.2 visited the house of complainant and repaired the LED but after four months, the LED again became out of order. Complainant again made complaint and the engineer of OP no.2 tried his best to repair the LED but he could not satisfied the complainant and stated that it is an internal defect and same cannot be rectified. He further argued that there is manufacturing defect in the LED in question and hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for OPs reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that there was no problem in the LED in question as the problem is in the set-up box. He further argued that as and when complainant made complaint with defect in the LED in question, on all occasions, the service technician of the OP no.2 visited the complainant’s house and duly repaired the product. He further argued that on 15.07.2020 complainant made the complaint with regard to non-functioning of the LED and after examining the LED, it was ascertained that the product has been exposed to liquid, due to which the product is malfunctioning. The technician of the authorized service centre of OP no.1 duly informed the complainant about the customer induced/liquid damage in the product and also requested the complainant to pay repair costs since any customer induced/liquid damage is not covered under warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           Admittedly, complainant had purchased a LED through online on 30.03.2019, vide invoice Ex.C1 while making payment of Rs.22,999/-.

11.           As per version of the complainant after sometime of the purchase of LED in question it started giving problem. This fact is admitted by the OPs in their written version that on 04.04.2019, 20.04.2019 complainant approached the OPs for non-functioning of the LED. The engineers of the OPs repaired the same. Further, as per version of the complainant LED again creating problem and he approached the OPs on 08.11.2019 this fact is also admitted by the OPs in their written version. Thereafter, complainant again approached the OPs on 15.07.2020, 27.07.2020 and 29.07.2020 for non-functioning of the LED in question. This fact is also admitted by the OPs in their written version. Meaning, thereby that the problems were starting in the LED from the very beginning and within warranty period. In support of his version, complainant placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. It is evident from the document/copy of messages Ex.C6, the defect in the LED has been arisen during warranty period and same was not rectified by the OPs. Hence, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

12.           OPs have also taken a plea that the LED in question is/was mal-functioning due to liquid damaged. This ground has been taken by the OPs first time on 15.07.2020 and prior to that the Engineer of the OPs had already checked the LED on 04.04.2019, 20.04.2019 and 08.11.2019. Hence, the plea taken by the OPs is having no force.  

13.           Learned counsel for complainant submits that now complainant has purchased new LED and he does not want to replace the same and wants to refund the total cost of the LED in question, alongwith litigation expenses, compensation in lieu of mental agony and harassment.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.22,999/- the cost of the LED in question to the complainant.  Complainant is also directed to return the old LED in question alongwith accessories to the OPs. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:21.02.2022

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)       

                            Member