BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No. 67 of 2017.
Date of Instt.:08.03.2017.
Date of Decision: 21.05.2018.
Raman Kumar son of Laxman Dass, resident of village Dhani Chnanwali, Post Office Kukranwali, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
...Complainant
Versus
- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.
- M/s New Talent Mobiles, Palika Bazar, Fatehabad through its Manager.
- Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited (Xiaomi India) by Rising Stars India Mobile Limited, 380-Belerica Road, Sri City Siddam, Agra-haram, village Varadaiahpalem Mundal, Chittor District Andhra Pradesh through its Authorized Signatory/Manager.
- Chiptek System, Authroized Customer Care of Redmi Mobiles, Shop No. 4, Red Cross Market, Railway Road, Hisar through its Authorized Signatory.
..Opposite Parties.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. M.K. Khurana, Member.
Present: Sh.Naresh Soni, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Parveen Jora, Advocate for OP no. 1.
Sh. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for OP no. 3.
OP no. 2 & 4 exparte.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties with the averments that he had purchased a mobile make Mi Redmi Note3 gold from OP no. 2 vide invoice no. 12431 dated 3.8.2016 for an amount of Rs. 11,999/-. At that time, it was told by the OP no. 2 that the complainant can get insured the aforesaid mobile and in case of any mis-happening like damage, theft and snatching of mobile etc., the insurance company will pay the total sum assured of the aforesaid mobile. Therefore, on the assurance of the OP no. 2, the complainant got insured the aforesaid mobile with OP no. 1 vide coupon scratch no. PP1299 having validity of one year. OP no. 3 is manufacture of the mobile handset in question and as such the complainant is consumer of all the OPs as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. It is further submitted that on 6.2.2016, the aforesaid mobile handset of the complainant became switched off and the complainant put the same on charging and after getting the same charged, when the complainant switched on the mobile handset, then it was noticed that the functions of the mobile were not working and the mobile was also not getting network and as such the mobile handset in question became almost useless. Therefore, the complainant visited the office of OP no. 1 and made a complaint in this regard, then the OP no. 1 instructed to the complainant to make a complaint in this regard to the insurance company. It is further submitted that the complainant informed OP regarding fault in the mobile, then the complainant was instructed to approach the customer care of the mobile and as such the complainant visited to the office of the OP no. 4 and told that the mobile is under warranty and the mobile is insured with the OP no. 1. It is further submitted that OP no. 4 after checking the mobile asked to complainant to come again after 3-4 days. Thereafter the complainant visited the office of OP no. 4 many times, but the OP no. 4 delayed the matter. However, finally OP no. 4 returned the mobile by stating that the mobile cannot be repaired. It is further submitted that the complainant requested to the OPs to replace the mobile with new one or to return the original cost of the mobile amounting to Rs. 11,999/- along-with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of purchasing the mobile till realization, but the OPs avoided the matter on one pretext or the other and now two days back, the OPs have flatly refused to do so. The above said act on the part of OPs amount to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled for refund of the full amount of insurance of the mobile along-with compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him. Hence, the present complaint.
3. On being served, OP no. 1 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and concealment of true and material facts etc; have been raised.
4. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. It is also submitted that no claim was reported or registered with the answering respondent. It is further submitted that it is clear from the averments made in the complaint that it is not a case of accident rather the same appears to be the result of the manufacturing defect for which the answering respondent is not liable. It is further submitted that the complainant never approached to OP, with regard to any complaint in the handset in question. The OP no. 1 in the written statement controverted all the allegations made by the complaint and further prayed for dismissal of the complaint being devoid of any merit.
5. On being served, OP no. 3 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to cause of action, maintainability, joining of proper parties etc. have been raised.
6. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant has already approached OP no. 1, which is the insurance company, for claiming insurance in connection with damage caused to the product. It is further submitted that the OP no. 3 had no role to play in the alleged deficiency in service caused to the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant was duly advised by the authorized service centre of the OP no. 3 to pay the estimated costs for the repair since any kind of customer induced damage such as liquid damage is not covered under the warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product. It is further submitted that the technicians of the authorized service centre of the OP no. 3 duly received the product and after proper examination informed the complainant about the liquid damage in the product and also requested the complainant to pay repair costs since customer induced damages and liquid damage are not covered under standard warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product. The OP no. 3 in the written statement controverted all the allegations made by the complaint and further prayed that the present complaint deserves dismissal being devoid of any merits.
7. OPs no. 2 & 4 have failed to come present. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 12.4.2017 and 12.3.2018, respectively.
8. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A along-with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3. On the other hand Sh. Sushil Kumar, Divisional Manager, filed an affidavit as Annexure RW1/A on behalf of OP no. 1 and Sh. Sameer BS Rao, filed an affidavit as RW3/A on behalf of OP no. 3. The OPs no. 1 & 3 also tendered in evidence documents as Annexure R1 to R-7 and closed the evidence.
9. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record of the present case. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the mobile handset in question from OP no. 2 for an amount of Rs. 11,999/- on 3.8.2016. It is further the case of the complainant that the mobile handset in question was insured by the OP no. 1 against any mis-happening like damage, theft or snatching of the mobile etc. The insurance was having a validity of one year from the date of issuance of the insurance. It is further the case of the complainant that thereafter on 6.2.2016 the mobile became off and all its functions stopped to work and the mobile almost became useless. Therefore, the complainant visited OP no. 1 regarding complaint in the mobile. The OP no. 1 referred him to the customer care centre of the company i.e. OP no. 4. The OP no. 4 after inspection of the mobile returned the same by stating that the same cannot be repaired. Therefore, the complainant requested the OPs for replacement of the mobile in question or return the original cost. It is further the case of the complainant that the abovesaid act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency and he is entitled for refund of the amount of insurance of the mobile amounting to Rs. 11,999/-.
10. After hearing the arguments and perusing the pleading and arguments placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to him. From perusal of the prayer clause made in the complaint, it is revealed that the complainant has prayed for refund of assured amount of the mobile. However, from perusal of the averments made in the complaint the damage or loss caused to the mobile is not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. From the facts as mentioned in the complaint, it is a case of defect in the handset and not a case of any accidental damage or theft or burglary or any reason covered in the insurance policy. Otherwise also there is no document on the file to prove that the complainant has ever submitted any claim before the insurance company and as such his claim against the insurance company is not maintainable being pre-mature.
11. The complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency against other OPs also. There is no opinion of any expert or mobile engineer to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the handset. It is a settled proposition of law that in absence of any expert opinion that there is a manufacturing defect in a product, the manufacturer cannot be ordered to replace the same or refund the original value of the same to the complainant. Otherwise also from perusal of Annexure R-3, it is revealed that the defect in the mobile in question is on account of water damage and the same is not covered within the warranty as issued by the manufacturer.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost as provided in the rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum:
Dt.21.05.2018.
(M.K. Khurana) (Raghbir Singh)
Member President
DCDRF, Fatehabad.
