Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/113/2017

Rohit Pahwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi Exclusive- Chandigarh. - Opp.Party(s)

Harpreet Saini

01 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/113/2017
Date of Institution	:	06/02/2017
Date of Decision	:	01/03/2018

 

Rohit Pahwa s/o Satnam Pahwa r/o #23 Ram Vihar Baltana Zirakpur, Mohali.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Xiaomi Exclusive – Chandigarh, MI Experience Service Centre, Shop No. SCO 2471-72, First Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Owner/ Manager/Authorized representative.

2.     Rocket Kommerce LLP 4^th Floor Plot No.183 to 197 & 254 to 258, Bommasandra Industrial Area Bommasandra Bangalore 562106 through its Proprietor/Owner/Manager/Authorised Representative.

3.     Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, 5^th Floor Block Delta B Block Embassy Tech Square Inside Cessna Business Park, Marathalli Outer  Ring Road, Kadubeesanahalli Varthur Hobli Bangalore 56103 through its Proprietor/Owner/manager/Authorised representative.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Harpreet Saini, Counsel for complainant
	:	None for OP-1
	:	OP-2 ex-parte.
	:	Sh. Vipul Sharma, Counsel for OP-3.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the on 25.4.2016, the complainant purchased a Redmi Note 3 mobile phone from the website of OP-2 after paying Rs.9,999/-.  The complainant got the phone after a few days and started using the same. In the month of November 2016, the phone started giving trouble with charging and switch off and there was problem in its display.  The complainant took the same to OP-1 where job sheet dated 28.11.2016 was prepared, but, it returned the same stating inability to repair and also refused to replace the product, though the same was under warranty.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP-1 in its written statement has not disputed the factual matrix.  However, it has been averred that the complainant has used the mobile phone very carelessly and in a casual manner.  It has been denied that the handset in question was kept by OP-1; rather the same was taken away by the complainant on the same day after intimation that the problems/issues were not covered under warranty and that he will have to pay for the same.  It been stated that OP-1 is not responsible to provide a replacement handset or a new handset being only an authorised service centre.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OP-2 did not appear despite due service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 5.4.2017.
4.         OP-3 in its separate written reply has also not disputed the factual matrix.  It has been averred that its authorised service centre/OP-1 examined the handset in question and duly informed the complainant that the same is out of warranty since the display of the product was found tampered. The complainant was also informed to pay the costs of repairing the damage in the product, but he refused to pay the same and filed the instant complaint.   Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         The contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant and OP-3.
7.         It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant purchased one Redmi Note 3 mobile handset after spending amount of Rs.9,999/- on 25.4.2016 from OP-2. Annexure C-2 is the job sheet dated 28.11.2016.  The sole grouse of the complainant is that on 28.11.2016, the OPs showed their inability to repair the handset and thereafter refused to repair the same which was used only for a few months. Therefore, it has been alleged by the complainant that despite the handset being under warranty, OPs could not resolve the issue of its repair/ replacement.
8.         The stand taken by OP-1/service centre is that the handset in question was used very carelessly in a casual manner by the complainant and after inspecting the handset it was informed to the complainant that the problems/issues are not covered under warranty and that he had to pay for the same. It has also been contended that it, being the service centre, can only provide services and not responsible for the replacement of the handset in question.
9.         OP-2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte.  This act of OP-2 draws an adverse inference against it.  The non-appearance of OP-2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted qua OP-2.
10.         On the other hand, it has been stated by
    OP-3/manufacturer that OP-1 after examining the handset informed the complainant that as the display is tampered, therefore, the same is out of warranty and the complainant had to pay for the repair of the damaged product which he himself refused.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on its part.
11.         A perusal of job sheet dated 28.11.2016 (Annexure C-2) clearly reveals that the handset in question was in good condition and there was no mention of tampering of the display board and requirement of replacing of the same, as alleged by the OPs. It is also not the case of the OPs that Annexure C-2 was not issued by them. As such, it cannot be assumed that the handset was out of warranty.  Hence, the act of the OPs for non-repairing the mobile handset, despite being under warranty, and asking the complainant to pay for the cost of repair, proves deficiency in service on their part which certainly has caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
12.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the invoice value of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.9,999/- to the complainant. The complainant shall, however, return the handset to the OPs. 
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

13.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
01/03/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member