Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/161/2023

MUKESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THREE VEE COMM PVT. LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV KUMAR KAUNDAL

16 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	161 of 2023
Date  of  Institution	:	07.03.2023
Date   of   Decision	:	16.01.2024

 

 

 

 

 

       Mukesh Kumar, aged about 47 years, s/o Sh. Gopi Lal, resident of Flat No. 160/2, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Three Vee Comm Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 1046, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh    -160022  through  its M. D. /Director/Authorized Signatory.

2]  MI/ Service Centre, SCO No.2471-72, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh    160022 through its Authorized Signatory.

3]  Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited., Orchid (Block E), Embassy  Tech Village Devarabeesanahalli, Marathahalli-Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore-560103, Karnataka through its M.D./Director/ Authorized Signatory.

4]  Customer Care, Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, AKR Infinity, Sy. No. 113, Krishna Reddy, Industrial Area, 7^th  Mile, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560068, Karnataka through its Manager/authorized signatory.

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                    MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  :    Complainant in person

OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

Sh.Atul Goyal, Counsel for OPs No.3 & 4

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

        The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that on 18.12.2020 he purchased a Mobile Model- Mi10t Pro 8/128gb, from OP NO.1 for a sum of Rs. 38,000/- and made payment through Credit Card (Ann.C-1).  It is stated that at that time sale, the OP No.1 assured that the said mobile phone is Pro 5G 144 Hz Adaptivesync Display Qualcomm (Regd.) SnapdragonTM 865 and also mentioned that 5G connectivity will vary based on local operator capabilities.  It is submitted that in Jan., 2023 the complainant came to know that there is no connectivity of 5G network in the said mobile phone and the matter was reported to the service centre i.e. OP No.2, which replied that this set is not working to the connectivity of 5G network at this stage i.e. mobile set is not operating/connecting the 5G network (Ann.C-3 & C-4).  It is pleaded that the complainant also checked whether the phone is 5G enabled or not and the result shows the message that handset of the complainant does not support 5G in Airtel App as well as Jio App (Ann.C-8).  It is also pleaded that the OPs have concealed this fact from the complainant and kept him in dark.  As such, the complainant sent legal notice to the OPs on 13.2.2023 (Ann.,C-5 to C-7) but despite of all that the OPs neither changed the mobile set nor refunded its cost. Hence, this complaint has been filed with a prayer to direct the OPs to either change the mobile handset or refund its cost of Rs.38,000/- with interest as well as compensation and legal cost.

 

2]       The OP No.1 & 2 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence OP No.1 & 2 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 13.04.2023.

 

         After notice of the complaint, the OP No.3 & 4 have put in appearance and filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case about sale of the mobile handset in question, stated that the standard warranty period of one year applicable to the Product in question expired on 18.12.2021. It is stated that the Complainant raised a Complaint to the authorized service centre of the OPs No.3 & 4 for the first time alleging that the handset does not support JIO 5G network. It is also stated that in 2020, when the Product was launched, there was no JIO 5G network technology available in India and the technical aspect as to specification and to make the handset compatible for working of JIO 5G network in handset, the technology is required to be operatable at that point of time when a device technology is being designed and developed. It is submitted that JIO 5G was launched in October, 2022.  It is pleaded that the engineers of the answering OPs are making efforts towards making JIO 5G compatible to all 5G devices of Xiaomi.  It is submitted that the complainant has successfully used the Product for more than 2 year 1 months and 11 days, which shows that the Product is of good quality.  It is also submitted that the complainant has not proved any defect in the mobile phone in question. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.3 & 4 lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

          

3]      Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OP No.3 & 4 made in their written version.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the contesting OPs and have gone through the entire record including written arguments. 

 

6]       The main question in the present complaint is whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs in selling the mobile phone in question to the complainant by misrepresenting it to be 5G compatible or not?

 

7]       To find out answer to these questions, it is important to take into consideration the following facts and circumstances of the present complaint:-

         From the bill and accompanying documents (Ann.C-1 Pg. 21 to 25), it is observed that the complainant was sold the mobile phone in question model-MI 10T Pro 5G and it is mentioned on Pg.23 of Ann.C-1 that 5G connectivity will vary based on local operator capabilities, which proves that the mobile phone in question was sold to the complainant stating to be compatible to 5G connection.  However, from documents Ann.C-3 & C-8 it is clear that the handset in question is not compatible to 5G as promised.  Further the OPs No.3 & 4 in their written version also stated that they are making efforts towards 5G compatible to all 5G devices of Xiaomi. 

8]       Moreover, the OPs No.1 & 2 did not appear to contest the case and preferred to proceed against ex-parte, which shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainants. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant qua OPs No.1 & 2 have gone unrebutted & un-controverted.

         Therefore, it is clear that the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice by selling the mobile phone in question by misrepresenting it to be compatible to 5G. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice and equity to direct the OPs to refund the price of the mobile handset to the complainant instead of its replacement.

 

9]       Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed against OPs No.3 & 4. The OPs No.3 & 4 are directed to refund the price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.38,000/- to the complainant. The complainant shall return the old mobile handset in question along with its accessories, if any, to the OPs No.3 & 4 on receipt of the awarded amount.

         This order be complied with by OP No.3 & 4 within ninety days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

 

10]      The complaint qua OPs No.1 & 2 stands dismissed.

 

11]     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

         The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.        

Announced

16.01.2024                                                                    Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER