Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/71/2016

Gaurav Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

XIAOMI Inc. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	71 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	02.02.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	16.08.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Guarav Kumar r/o 2287-A, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1)       Xiaomi inc. 68 Qinghe Middle Street, Haidian District, Beijing China, through its Managing Director/ authorized signatory.

 

2)       Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd., Vaishnavi Summit, No.6/B,7th Main, 80 feet Road, 3rd Block Koramangala, Bangalore-560034, through its Managing Director/ authorized signatory.

 

3)       HCL Services Ltd. (MI Exclusive Centre) SCO No.2471-72, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

4)       WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. Ozone Manay Tech Park, No.56/18, ‘B’ Block 9th floor, Garvebhavipalya Hosur Road, Bangalore-560068, Karnataka, through its Managing Director.

…… Opposite Parties 

 

 

BEFORE: DR. MANJIT SINGH            PRESIDENT

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv.
For OP No. 2 & 4	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Adv.
For OP No.3	:	Sh. N.P.Sharma, Adv.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a mobile Mi (White) through online purchase from OP No.2 on 28.7.2015, which was manufactured by OP No.1. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.12,999/-  for the said mobile. The mobile was having one-year warranty. The complainant started facing problem of charging and the data could not be saved in the mobile. The complainant called on the Xiaomi’s Customer Care No. The complainant was asked to visit the service Centre i.e. OP No.3.  on 11.01.2016 OP No.3 took the mobile for repairs and gave the expected date of return as 21.6.2016.  However, after five hours the cousin of the complainant was asked to collect the mobile in question, as the same cannot be repaired being tampered and got repaired from unauthorized service centre.  The cousin of the  complainant informed the service centre that it is for the first time the mobile gave problem and they have approached the service centre for resolution of their grievance but they refused to repair the under warranty mobile and demanded Rs.285/- for inspection.  It is alleged that though the mobile was under warranty yet the OP NO.3 demanded money for repair of the same. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.           Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, No. 2, 3 and 4 seeking their version of the case. However, notice to OP No.1 could not be issued being situated outside of India.
3.           The OP No.2 filed its written statement stating therein that the answering OP is a duly registered company engaged in to wholesale cash and carry business.  It has further been stated that the answering OP is neither manufacturer nor the reseller of the mobile phone in question and as such the claimed defect of manufacturing cannot be associated with the answering OP. It has further been stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering OPs as such the complaint is not maintainable against the OP No.2.  As per OP No.2, it does not sell any products to end consumers. It is only a wholesaler and is involved in B2B sales. 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 been made.
4.           OP No.3 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the handset of the complainant was received on 11.1.2016 by OP No.3 and the same was logged in for diagnosis/repair; however when it was opened for diagnosis, the service engineer found that there were scratches/signs of tampering with the Heat sink of the processor of the phone and hence he realized upon his visual inspection that the handset had been previously opened at an unauthorized repair shop which is an act which vitiates the limited liability warranty issued on the said handset by OP No.1 and therefore a call was made to the cousin of the complainant and he was informed about the outcome of the inspection.  It has also been admitted that the answering OP demanded Rs.285/- for inspection fee as the handset was now discovered to be outside of warranty but the cousin of the complainant denied for the same. It is stated that the handset was returned to him. Rest of the allegation leveled against the answering OP have been denied being wrong.
5.      Opposite Party No. 4 in its reply stated that it is carrying on business of sale of goods manufactured/produced by other. The Opposite Party NO.4 is a registered seller on the website of flipkart.com and sells products of other through the website and it is not engaged in selling of any goods manufactured or produced by its own. The answering Opposite Party is neither the manufacturer of the product nor the service centre of the manufacturer hence no cause of action arose against it. It is averred that the duty to remove the defect in the handset was of the manufacturer and service centre and there is no role of Opposite Party No.4. Rest of the allegations have been denied being wrong.
6.           The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
7.           Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
8.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
9.           We have observed from Annexure C-2 that mobile was covered under a limited warranty of one year for the period 28.7.2015 to 27.7.2016 subject to certain terms and conditions including the following:- 

          i.        violation of the warranty terms, invalidate warranty,                                expired warranty or other reason.

ii.       During the warranty period in the event of violation which defined as customer induced damage such as self-repairs, exposure to water, damage caused by misuse, alteration, failure to comply with product manual etc.

 

10.           In the instant case on examination of the mobile in question by the service centre i.e. OP No.3, scratches/signs of tampering with head sink of the processor of the mobile in question was found, which is an act, which violates the warranty. In such a peculiar circumstances wherein there is a violation of warranty, no relief can be accorded to the complainant. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency found on the part of the OPs as such the complainant has no merit and the same deserves rejections.
11.           For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
12.           The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

16.08.2016                                 

Sd/- 

(DR. MANJIT SINGH)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/- 

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

mp