Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/26/2021

Sunil Kumar Mallan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The MD/CEO/GM/Authorised Signatory Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harjeet Singh & Hemant Molri Adv.

12 May 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Appeal No	:	A/26/2021
Date  of  Institution	:	18/03/2021
Date   of   Decision	:	12/05/2022

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil Kumar Mallan, Advocate, S/o Lt. Thakar Dass, Mailing Office at Justice For You (Law Firm), Booth No.14-B, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

 

Also Resident of House No.3493, S.K. Model School, Gali No.3, Putlighar, Amritsar – 143001 (Punjab).

 

…. Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.   The MD/ CEO/ GM/ Authorized Signatory, Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, 8th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay, Marathahalli – Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India – 560103.

 

2.   Electro Enterprises, SCO 1039, Sector 22-B, Opposite Bus Stand, Chandigarh – 160017, through its Prop./Partner/GM.

 

3.   Simran Enterprises, Authorized Service Centre of OP No.1, 7-B, 1st Floor, Rani Ka Bagh, Opposite District Library, Amritsar, through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Manager.

 

4.   M/s Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, 8th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay, Marathahalli – Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India – 560103, through its General Manager.

…… Respondents

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

MRS. PADMA PANDEY            MEMBER

          MR. RAJESH K. ARYA           MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Sunil Kumar Mallan, Appellant in person.
		Respondents ex-parte vide order dated 02.08.2021

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.10.2020 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/386/2018, which reads as under:-

“9.  For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

 

2.      Before the District Commission-I, it was the case of the Appellant/Complainant that he had purchased one Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 from Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 on 10.05.2017 for a sale consideration of Rs.13,900/-. On 14.06.2018 the said mobile started occurring technical problems. As the Appellant/Complainant was at Amritsar visit, he was advised by the Customer Care Helpline to visit/ handover the said mobile handset to Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3. The same was accordingly handed over to Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3 for repairs, who charged Rs.767/- for the same. The mobile stopped working next day evening. Being holidays for two days, the Appellant/Complainant visited the Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3 on 19.06.2018 and reported the problem. The Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3 tried its best, but could not repair the handset and instead of returning the handset, its Service Engineer tried to steal some components; when it was objected by the Appellant/ Complainant, team of Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3 started using obnoxious language in an intolerable loud pitch. Eventually, legal notice dated 22.06.2018 was served upon the Respondents/ Opposite Parties, but the same failed to fructify. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Commission-I, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents/OPs.
3.      In the reply filed before the District Commission-I, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, the Respondents No.1 & 4/Opposite Parties No.1 & 4 pleaded that on 14.06.2018 the Appellant/ Complainant approached the authorized service centre of answering Respondents with the issues in the product. On examination by the Service Engineer, it was ascertained that the product was facing issue relating to speaker, which was repaired on cost basis in accordance with the warranty terms and conditions associated with the product and returned the same in proper working condition to the Appellant/ Complainant. On 19.06.2018 the Appellant/Complainant again approached the authorized service centre of the answering Respondents/Opposite Parties with issues in the product. The Appellant/Complainant informed the Service Engineer that the product had become dead. The Appellant/Complainant thereafter was duly informed that since the product is already out of warranty, hence he would be required to pay the cost of repairing. However, the Appellant/Complainant refused to pay the repair costs and product was duly returned to him. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Respondents No.1 & 4/Opposite Parties No.1 & 4 prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
4.      However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 26.09.2018.
5.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. Lower Commission dismissed the Complaint of the Appellant/ Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.     
6.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant.
7.      Since nobody appeared on behalf of Respondents despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 02.08.2021.
8.      We have heard the Appellant in person and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care.
9.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10.      Indisputably, the Complainant purchased the handset in question from M/s Electro Enterprises (Respondent/Opposite Party No.2) on 10.05.2017 vide invoice Annexure C-1. The said handset was carrying warranty of one year, which fact is discernible from Annexure-A relied upon by the Respondents (Opposite Parties No.1 & 4) before the Ld. Lower Commission. It has come on record that the handset in question was taken by the Complainant to the Service Centre on 11.06.2018 and paid Rs.767/- towards its repair, as the handset was out of warranty. When again the mobile handset stopped working, the Appellant/ Complainant took the same to Respondent/ Opposite Party No.3 for repairs on 19.06.2018. We have scanned the service record/job-sheets dated 11.06.2018 and 19.06.2018 and found that handset in question was out of warranty. Needless to mention here that on the first occasion also the handset was repaired on cost basis and the Complainant had paid Rs.767/- for the repairs. It cannot thus be said that the Appellant/ Complainant was not aware of the fact that the handset was out of warranty. The Appellant/ Complainant was in the knowledge that the product was already out of warranty and he was required to pay the requisite charges for its repairs. However, when the Appellant/ Complainant refused to pay the repair charges, the handset was returned back to him. In this backdrop, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly concluded that the Appellant/Complainant was bound to bear the repairing charges as the product was out of warranty and there was no deficiency in service on the part of Respondents/Opposite Parties. In nutshell, the Ld. Lower Commission had dealt with all the above said deficiencies threadbare and dismissed the Complaint, which we feel does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
11.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed.
12.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
13.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

12^th May, 2022                                 

Sd/-

                                  (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/

                                  (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”