Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/777/2016

Amandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi Exclusive-Chandigarh - Opp.Party(s)

D.S Soundh Adv.

03 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	777/2016
Date of Institution	:	16.09.2016
Date of Decision	:	03.07.2017

 

                                       

                                               

 

Amandeep Singh s/o Sh.Ranbir Singh r/o # 135, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.     Xiaomi Exclusive –Chandigarh SCO 2471-72, First Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh

 

2.     M/s Rocket Kommerce LLP, 4^th Floor, Plot Nos.183-197, Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bommasandra, Bangalore-562106.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH , MEMBER

 

 

Argued by:

Complainant in person.

                Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for OP No.1.

                OP No.2 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he purchased  a  mobile handset  make  Xiaomi Redmi Note Prime 16 G vide Invoice dated 05.01.2016 for Rs.8,499/- from OP No.1 through its online facility, having warranty of one year (Annexure C-1).   The mobile phone started giving problem of battery within three months of its purchase and the battery was to be recharged every two hours, even though the usage was minimal.  It has further been averred that the mobile phone started heating up and the touch screen also failed to work many times and there were issues with its proximity sensor also and therefore, the same was landed with the service center (OP No.1) against service voucher dated 16.05.2016 (Annexure  C-2) and the same was to be returned on 31.05.2016. It has further been averred that the mobile phone is lying with OP No.1 for repairs for the last four months and whenever he visited OP No.1 it put off the matter on one pretext or the other.  According to the complainant, inspite of its promise vide e-mail dated 06.07.2016 (Annexure C-3) to replace the mobile phone handset, the OPs have not given the replacement.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Despite due service through registered post, Opposite Party No.2 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.10.2016.
3.         In its written statement, OP No.1 has pleaded that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant was already informed since 19.09.2016 that the brand new replacement for his mobile Redmi Note Prime 16 GB white is awaiting pick up, however for ulterior reasons, he has failed to collect the same till date and filed the present complaint and is hell bent on continuing with the present litigation for illegal enrichment. It has further been pleaded that   the period of delay between 16.05.2016 to 19.09.2016 could not be pressed against it because the replacement was to be sent by the manufacturer and it did not have any implied/explicit control on the delivery of the replacement handset which was delayed by the manufacturer. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OP No.1 controverting their stand and reiterating his own. 
5.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OP No.1 and have gone through the evidence on record.
6.         Admittedly, the mobile phone in question was handed over to OP No.1 for repairs on 16.05.2016.  It is evident from Annexure C-3 i.e. e-mail that Mi India Customer support has agreed to replace the mobile handset in question with a new mobile handset i.e. Redmi Note Prime 16G white on 06.07.2016.   However as is evident from the written reply, OP No.1 took further two months to inform to the complainant that the replacement was received on 18.09.2016.  Moreover, in his replication, the complainant has specifically stated that he visited OP No.1 to pick up the mobile phone but on his visit, he was informed that the same did not arrive and it made other flimsy excuses and thereafter no future communication was ever done. In our considered view, once the mobile phone in question was found to be defective one by the OPs themselves within the warranty period then it is the bounden duty of the OPs to provide the replacement of the mobile phone to the complainant forthwith or within a reasonable period of 10-15 days and the consumer cannot be deprived of the use of the mobile phone for such a long time. In this view of the matter, the OPs have proved to be deficient in rendering the services to the complainant.
7.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed with a direction to the OPs to provide a brand new mobile phone i.e. Redmi Note Prime 16G with fresh warranty or in the alternative to refund its price to the complainant. The OPs shall also pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,500/- to the complainant. This order be complied with by the OPs, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amounts shall fetch interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment.
8.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03.07.2017                                                                    sd/-

                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER