Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 241
Instituted on : 21.04.2017
Decided on : 17.12.2019.
Pawan Kumar son of Late Shri Geeta Ram, resident of House No.764/34 Hari Singh Colony, Jakar Property Dealer Wali Gali, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- W.S. Retail Service Pvt. Ltd. Khasra No.435, Road No.#4, Laal Dora Ext, Mahipal Pur, Delhi-110037.
- M/S WS Retail Service Pvt. Ltd., 42/1 & 43, Kacherakanahalli, village Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Banglore, Karnataka, PIN 560067 (Through its MD/Authority Representative) Consumer Care Office.
- Xioami Communication Co. Ltd., through Managing Director/Importer Beetal Teletech Ltd. 1st Floor, Plot No.16, Udyog Vihar Phase IV, Gurgaon-122015.
- Managing Director, M/s Qarmatek Service Pvt. Ltd. FCTY-123/B-1, Phase-1, GIDC-Vatva, Ahmedabad(Gug)-382445.
- Mr. Arun Hattangadi, (Authorized Person and dealt with the handset), M/s Qarmatek Service Pvt. Ltd. FCTY-123/B-1, Phase-1, GIDC-Vatva Ahmedabad(Gug)-382445.
- Mr. Dharmesh,(Authorized Person and dealt with the handset), M/s Qarmatek Service Pvt. Ltd. FCTY-123/B-1, Phase-1, GIDC-Vatva, Ahmedabad(Gug)-382445.
- Xioami Technology India Pvt. Ltd., 8th Floor, Tower-1, umiya Business Bay Marathalli-Sarajpur, Outer Ring Road Bangalore, Karnataka India-560103.
Also at.
Xioami Technology Pvt. Ltd., 5th floor Delta Blk, Embassy technology SQ, Marathalli Sarajpur outer Ring Road, Kadubeeanahalli Bangalore, Karnataka India-560103 Email:
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Shri R.K.Mudgil, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Vijay Pal Gahlawat, Advocate for the opposite party no.1 and 2.
Shri Sandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the Opposite party no.3.
Shri Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the Opposite party no.7.
Opposite party no.4 to 6 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased mobile handset make REDMI Note 4G from the opposite party no.1 for Rs.9,999/-, vide Invoice no.DEL20150400003920 dated 1.4.2015. It is also averred that the above said handset was not functioning properly from the day of purchase. Sometimes it used to ‘Hang’ and sometime ‘touchpad’ was also not working properly. During the first week of August, 2015, touchpad stopped working completely and he was not able to receive phone calls but it was showing screen and lighten. He took the photographs of the screen as well as sides of the phone, and reported the matter to the company but they informed to the complainant that they do not deal with under warranty products and they gave an option to the complainant that if he does not want to claim warranty then they can repair the handset in Rs.3200/- for touch screen and said only problem in the handset is pertaining to touch screen. Thereafter, complainant received an email that phone will liquid damage and he is not be getting warranty and its repair charges will be Rs.5038/-. This liquid damage story has been falsely created by opposite party no.4 in order to avoid the warranty facilitated by the Xiaomi Company. After two days, complainant called upon their service centre, on which they assured the complainant that his phone will be repaired under warranty and it will be delivered till 27th of August, 2015. Before 27th the complainant received a call from the service centre and Mr. Dharmesh replied that his phone is dead and he had to pay Rs.6,999/- and his phone is not under warranty. The complainant mailed to the Xiaomi Company i.e. opposite party no.3 on its mail ID ‘service.in@xiaomi.com’ but they did not respond to him. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of Xiaomi Company and its Indian Subsidiary i.e. opposite party no.3. Complainant received a phone call from customer care and they demanded Rs.13,675/- for the repair of the handset, and thereafter, he received an email and they demanded Rs.9717/- for repair. The complainant got shocked and felt devastated from this repeated changing stance of the company. The complainant telephonically as well as email demanded CCTV footage of the handset from the day it was first open till it inspection over but till today opposite party have not replied/supplied the same. The opposite party no.1 and 2 are equally responsible for selling appropriate and functional handset and opposite party no.3 is responsible for providing best service after sale as promised but the same was not provided. Despite repeated request and reminders of the complainant, opposite parties failed to take any remedial measures. The complainant also served a legal notice to all the opposite parties but to no effect. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.9,999/- alongwith interest of @18% per annum w.e.f. 1.4.2015 to till its realization and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of harassment as well as to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 to 3 & 7 appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party no.1 and 2 submitted in their reply that opposite party no.1 is an online reseller registered on ‘Flipkart.com’. Opposite party no.1 is not the manufacturer but an online reseller and the products sold by opposite party no.1 carry warranty issued/provided by the respective manufacturers against manufacturing defect subject to the terms & conditions determined by the manufacturers only. The opposite party no.1 is engaged in sale of goods manufactured and produced by other manufacturer. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties No.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that the complainant purchase the handset from the respondent no.1 and manufacture by the Xiaomi Communication and the complainant intentionally mentioned the name and address of the answering respondent instead of providing the address of the manufacturer. There is no deficiency in service on the party of the answering respondent. Answering respondent has nothing to do with the after sale service provided by the manufacturer through its service network. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Opposite party no.7 in its reply has submitted that during the warranty period, in the event of violation, which is defined as customer induced damage, such as self-repairs, exposure to water, damage caused by misuse, alternation, failure to comply with the product manual etc. the company will determine whether the product is under warranty or not. It is also submitted that the complainant was duly advised by the authorized service centre of the respondent no.3/7 to pay the estimated costs for the repair since any kind of customer induced damage is not covered under the warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product. Additionally, since the warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product clearly states that if the product suffers customer induced damage caused due to exposure to water at the hands of the complainant, the product will automatically be held to be ‘out of warranty’. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.7 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, opposite parties no.4 to 6 failed to appear before the Forum, despite service. Hence, opposite parties no.4 to 6 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.7.2017 of this Forum.
5. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
6. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C43 and closed his evidence on 5.12.2018. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.DW1/A, and has closed his evidence on 7.2.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party no.7 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW7/A and documents Ex.R7/1 to Ex.R7/3 and close the same on 13.3.2019. However, ld. counsel for the opposite party no.3 made a statement that the reply already filed on behalf of OP no.3 be also read in his evidence.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the complainant had purchased the handset on 01.04.2015 and the defect in the mobile set appeared during the first week of August 2015 i.e. within 4 months of purchase. As per email Ex.C10 dated 18.08.2015, it was told by the service centre that the handset in question was liquid damage and that the repair would be on chargeable basis. As per email Ex.C13, it has been submitted that the service centre told the repair charges of Rs.3200, thereafter on 13.08.2015, they told the charges of Rs.5038/-, after sometime Rs.6999/- and on 14.09.2015, they told the repair estimate Rs.13675/-. As per Ex.C16, the repair estimate told by the service centre is Rs.9617/-. As per Ex.C32, it is admitted by the opposite party No.4 that: “The phone was received in dead condition. Perhaps the battery had discharged in transit. It is now coming on but does not work satisfactorily because of the liquid damage”. Hence from the alleged documents placed on record, it is observed that the battery in question was dead during transit and at the time of handing over the phone to the service centre, the phone was not liquid damaged. Moreover the opposite parties have not taken one stand while giving the estimate, as the different amounts have been demanded from the complainant on account of repair. The mobile in question became defective during the warranty period but the same was not repaired free of cost by the opposite parties despite so many emails and conversation with the opposite parties by the complainant which proves deficiency in service on their part.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and opposite party No.7 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.9999/-(Rupees nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.21.04.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
17.12.2019.
…………………………………….
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
.
