Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/112/2017

Gurvinder Sandhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi Exclusive-Chandigarh - Opp.Party(s)

Harpreet Saini

16 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/112/2017
Date of Institution	:	06/02/2017
Date of Decision	:	16/01/2018

 

Gurvinder Sandhu s/o Ramesh Kumar, R/o H.No.2283, Sec. 23-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Xiaomi Exclusive – Chandigarh, MI Experience Service Centre, SCO 2471-72, First Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor/ Owner/ Manager/ Auth. Representative.

 

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

 

[3]     Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, 5^th Floor, Block Delta, B-Block, Embassy Tech. Square, Inside Cessna Business Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Kadubeesanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore 560103, through its Proprietor/ Owner/ Manager/ Auth. Representative.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for Complainant.
		None for Opposite Party No.1
		Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.
		Sh. Vipul Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Gurvinder Singh, complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Xiaomi Exclusive – Chandigarh and Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he had purchased one Mi 4i Dark Grey 16G mobile handset on 10.06.2016 for Rs.11,999/- from Opposite Party No.2. During the month of Dec. 2016 the said mobile handset started giving trouble with charging and switch off on account of which it was taken to Opposite Party No.1 for repairs on 17.12.2016 (Job Sheet Annexure C-2). The Opposite Party No.1 showed its inability to repair the handset and returned the same to the Complainant. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant have preferred the present Complaint.     
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte.
3.         In its written reply, Opposite Party No.1 has pleaded that on examination of the product in question, it was found to be damaged and in case of any physical damage or any damage caused due to misuse of the handset, the warranty of the said handset would stand expired and thus the repair of the defective handset becomes chargeable. The Complainant was well aware of the fact that the fault in the said handset occurred due to his negligence and took the handset back without getting it repaired and filed the present Complaint with malafide intentions. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         In its written reply, Opposite Party No.3 has pleaded that after examination of the product by the Opposite Party No.1, it was found that the main board of the product was tampered and the product had suffered physical damage. The Complainant was duly informed about the damage and the estimated costs for repairing the product since the product was out of warranty owing to physical damage to the mainboard of the product. The Complainant however refused to pay costs for repairs of the tampered mainboard and hence the product was delivered back to him without repairs. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the Complainant as well as Opposite Party No.1 and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 (Opposite Party No.2 being ex-parte). 
7.         On perusal of the Service Record (Annexure-D) placed on record by Opposite Party No.3, it is evident that on 07.11.2016, the Complainant approached it with issues related to auto on/off and hanging of the handset in question. After the examination of the product by Opposite Party No.1, it was discovered that the mainboard of the handset was tampered and the product suffered physical damage. Hence, it was declared out of warranty. It was the Complainant himself who refused to pay for the repair of the tampered mainboard and the product was delivered back to him without repair. These facts have nowhere been averred by the Complainant in his entire pleadings, which shows that he has not approached this Forum with clean hands and therefore, adverse inference is drawn against him. A further perusal of the Service Order dated 17.12.2016 placed on record by the Complainant as Annexure C-2 and the Service Record of the even date placed as Annexure-E by the Opposite Party No.3 makes it abundantly clear that it was duly informed to the Complainant that the handset in question will be repaired at costs as the mainboard of the handset had suffered physical damage, which makes it out of warranty. Again the Complainant did not opt for the paid repairs, rather thrusted this unwarranted litigation upon the Opposite Parties.  Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/01/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”