BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.182 of 2017
Date of Institution: 27.7.2017
Date of Decision: 12.03.2018
Nitin Jain @ Krrish aged about 30 years son of Shri Gulab Jain, R/o Jaipur Hospital Sirsa, now at Bhadra Bazar, Gali Jain School Wali Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. TVS Electronics Ltd. C/O DHL, 4th Floor, Plot no.193/197 and 254-258, 137 & 248-249 Jigni Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial area Bangalore, 562106, through its Manager/ authorized person.
2. MI Service Center, Near Laxmi Sweets, Old Civil Hospital Road Sirsa Distt. Sirsa through its authorized person.
3. Xiamo Technology India Private Limited, having its office at 5th Floor, Block Delta, B Block, Embassy Tech Square, Inside Cessna Business Park, Marathahalli outer Ring Road, Kadubeesanahlli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore- 560103.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 3.
Sh. Rishab Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant with a desire to purchase a brand new MI phone, telephonically contacted to opposite party no.1, who is manufacturer of MI Mobile and booked a new MI Mobile, Model Redmi Note 3, Gold 32 GB and op no.1 booked the order of complainant and assured that mobile shall be sent within a short period on the address given by complainant and it was also told that amount of mobile will be given by complainant in cash at the time of delivery. On 10.8.2016, complainant received a parcel of mobile from op no.1 at his address in which a bill dated 10.8.2016 for Rs.11,999/- was available in the box. The complainant was given one year warranty of this mobile against all manufacturing defects. It is further averred that after few months, the mobile became completely dead. The complainant contacted with op no.1 and reported the above defect in the mobile whereupon op no.1 suggested him to visit op no.2 i.e. customer care. The complainant then visited op no.2 and op no.2 after inspection of mobile kept the same with it and asked to come after 2-3 days. After 2-3 days, when the complainant visited office of op no.2, then op no.2 asked to the complainant that his mobile is dead and if he want repair, he will have to pay an amount of Rs.6000/-. On listening this, the complainant was fully shocked and he told to op no.2 that mobile is under the warranty period of one year but op no.2 refused to repair the mobile of complainant without depositing of the amount and gave back the same to complainant. That complainant also contacted with op no.1 telephonically but op no.1 did not give any heed to the genuine request of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply asserting therein that op no.1 is not a proper party in the present complaint as op no.1 is only a vendor of the products sold by the company, Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited in India. The present matter relates to alleged deficiency of service on the part of Xiaomi and its authorized service centre and op no.1 has no role to paly in the after sales service provided to the complainant. It is further asserted that all Mi and Xiaomi brand mobile sold within India are sold under a set of warranty terms and conditions. On 26.5.2017, complainant approached the authorized service centre of Xiaomi with a complaint regarding the product. The service engineer of the authorized service centre duly received the product and recorded the issues in the service job sheet no.WXIN1705260002676 and provided the job sheet to the complainant. After examining the product for defects, it was ascertained that the product had suffered liquid damage. The technicians of the authorized service centre of Xiaomi duly informed the complainant about the liquid damage in the product and also requested the complainant to pay repair costs since customer induced damages such as liquid damage are not covered under standard warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product. The complainant however refused to pay the repair costs and the product was duly returned to the complainant. It is further asserted that complainant is well aware that the customer induced damage such as liquid damage to the product is not covered by applicable warranties as the complainant received a copy of the warranty upon delivery of the product. The complainant has in fact not presented any evidence to demonstrate that the alleged liquid damage to the product is a consequence of a defect in the product and not a consequence of use or mishandling by the complainant.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its written statement while raising certain preliminary objections has asserted that the complainant for the first time approached to the answering op on 26.5.2017 as detailed in service order, he was having minor problems with his mobile which was removed on the same day and his handset was given to him with due satisfaction. Thereafter, the complainant never approached to the answering op. Apart from the conduct of complainant, the answering op is still ready to remove any sort of problem, if occurred in the mobile despite the fact that the warranty of the set has been lapsed. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
4. The opposite party no.3 in its separate reply has resisted the complaint on similar grounds as taken by opposite party no.1.
5. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of invoice Ex.C2, again copy of invoice as Ex.C2/A and copy of service order Ex.C3. On the other hand, ops have
produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A, copy of warranty card Ex.R1, Ex.R2 and copy of service record Ex.R3.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. It has come on record that complainant purchased the above said mobile in question through online booking through opposite party no.1 and mobile in question was delivered to the complainant at his address at Sirsa against an amount of Rs.11,999/- as is evident from copy of invoice Ex.C2. It has also come on record that mobile in question is manufactured by opposite party no.3 and not by opposite party no.1 and the opposite party no.2 is the authorized service centre of opposite party no.3. The mobile in question was delivered to the complainant on 10.8.2016 and the complainant has alleged defects in the mobile in question within warranty period of one year. In this regard service order dated 26.5.2017 has been placed on file by complainant as Ex.C3 wherein fault description has been mentioned by op no.2 as ‘Cannot Power On’. Though there is nothing on record to presume that mobile in question is having any manufacturing defect, but however it is the legal obligation of the opposite parties to give services of repair etc. to the complainant within warranty period of one year and not providing of the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of ops.
8. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile in question of the complainant and to make it defect free even by replacing parts, if any free of costs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case it is found that mobile in question is not repairable, then the ops shall be liable to replace the mobile in question with a new one of same make and model or to refund the price of the mobile in question to the complainant within further period of 15 days. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. The complainant is also directed to deposit the mobile in question with op no.2 well in time against proper receipt. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:12.3.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
