DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 573 of 2016
Date of institution: 09.09.2016
Date of decision : 22.11.2017
Amarjeet Singh son of Gurdev Singh, resident of village Jandpur, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Xiaomi India Private Ltd., 5th Floor, Delta Blk, Embassy Tech. Sq. Kadubeesanahalli, Marathalli, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bangalore KA 560103 through its Managing Head.
2. Xiaomi Exclusive- Mohali SCF-118, (First Floor), Phase 3B2, Mohali through its Managing Head.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
OP No.1 ex-parte.
Shri Deep Singh, counsel for OP No.2.
ORDER
By Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Complainant Amarjeet Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. One Mr. Harsh Dhillon, friend of the complainant gifted him a Xiaomi Mobile Handset Model RedMI 2S-383 Redmi-2S-HM2-IN Gray Prime by purchasing it online from OP No.2 on 23.12.2015 for Rs.6,999/-. The handset was having warranty of one year. On 15.07.2016 the mobile handset stopped working and the complainant visited OP No.2 for repairs being service centre of OP No.1. OP No.2 took the mobile handset and kept the same with it and asked the complainant to come on 30.07.2016 for taking back the mobile handset after repairs. On 30.07.2016 the complainant visited OP No.2 and one official of OP No.2 informed him that the parts which are required for repair of the mobile are not available with them and it will take some more time to repair the handset. However, OP No.2 had not given any specific date for returning back the mobile handset and stated that they will inform the complainant when the handset is ready for delivery after repairs. The complainant when did not receive any call from OP No.2, wrote e-mail dated 08.08.2016 to OP No.1 regarding the service provided by OP No.2. The complainant received e-mail dated 09.08.2016 from OP No.1 asking him to provide them (1) the snap shot of the job sheet; (2) device model with IMEI Number; (3) Service Centre City and name; (4) due or repair date given by the service centre; (5) statement made by the service centre (what is the repair need to be done). The complainant vide e-mail dated 12.08.2016 provided these details to OP No.1. On 19.08.2016 the complainant received an e-mail from OP No.1 that the complaint has been successfully registered vide docket No.4097. In the meantime, the complainant continued to contact OP No.2 but every time it kept on repeating the same thing that parts are not available and it will take more time. Till today the complainant had contacted both the OPs telephonically and through e-mail but to no avail. The complainant is without mobile handset since 15.07.2016. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to immediately return the mobile handset after repairing the same or in the alternative if the mobile is not repairable, then to give him a new handset of the same model; to pay him Rs.20,000/- on account of inconvenience and mental agony.
3. None appeared for OP No.1 despite delivery of notice upon it. Thus, OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.11.2016.
4. OP No.2 in the written statement has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint is an abuse of process of law. The complainant is not a consumer of OP No.2 as the sale invoice dated 23.12.2015 is not issued in the name of the complainant rather it is issued in the name of Harsh Dhillon. It is no where mentioned in the complaint as to what was the occasion for said Harsh Dhillon to have gifted the mobile to the complainant nor any date when it was gifted; any gift deed; or affidavit of Harsh Dhillon has been filed in support of said averment of the complainant.
The mobile handset has already been repaired on 30.09.2016, however, for ulterior reasons the complainant has failed to collect the same till date. The OP No.2 being service centre of OP No.1 is merely liable in the event of there being any deficiency in service qua service/repairs rendered. The OP No.2 is not liable for any refund of the price/replacement of the handset or payment of damages. On inspection on 15.07.2016 it was found that mobile handset was not switching on which required replacement of parts. Thereafter a requisition was sent to OP No.1 for providing the parts which were finally received from OP No.1 on 28.09.2016 and thereafter within a period of two days the mobile was repaired and made ready for delivery. When the handset was brought to OP No.2, the complainant became bound by the terms and conditions of repair job sheet and terms and condition at No.11 says that HCL MI ESC shall make all efforts to ensure that product is repaired within two working days from the date of receipt of faulty product. At time, however, due to non availability/shortage of spare parts of complicated fault, the repair turnaround time may be longer than the time indicated in the job sheet. HCL MI ESC will not be responsible for any losses whatsoever in the event of delay in repair for such aforementioned reasons. The complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the repair order. Thus, the continuation of complaint is a gross abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the OP No.2 has denied the averments of the complainant and stated that one year warranty is only for the original purchaser and not for any subsequent owners/purchasers and further stated that the delay, if any, in completion of repairs is solely attributable to the lack of supply of spare parts from OP No.1. Thus, OP No.2 has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.
5. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex. CW-1/1; copies of bill Ex.C-1; job sheet Ex.C-2; e-mails Ex.C-3 to C-6. In rebuttal, counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Prabhakar Tewari, Deputy Manager (Legal) Ex.OP-1/2 and copy of terms and conditions Ex./OP-1.
6. We have heard the complainant and counsel for OP No.2 and have gone through the contents of file.
7. The complainant has received a mobile phone as gift from his friend and thus became a beneficiary of good that complainant’s friend has purchased i.e. complainant’s friend Mr. Harsh Dhillon has purchased the mobile handset online on 23.12.2015. On 15.07.2016 the mobile of the complainant stopped working for which he visited the service centre (OP No.2) and OP No.2 issued him service job sheet for repair of his phone. The complainant visited the office of OP No.2 on the given time to get back his phone but OP No.2 informed the complainant that required parts for repair of mobile are not available and needed more time to repair the mobile. Then, the complainant contacted OP No.1 through e-mail and OP No.1 registered the complaint of the complainant and the mobile phone of the complainant was not given back to him despite repeated telephonic calls and e-mails.
8. OP No.1 has registered the complaint of the complainant and provided the docket number to track his complaint but the complainant has not provided any further document/evidence to show that OP No.1 has not sought out his grievance whereas despite service of OP No.1 has chosen not to appear and contest the case and to rebut the allegations as alleged by the complainant upon him in Para No.11 and 12 of the complaint. Non rebuttal of assertions of the complaint by OP No.1 makes it clear that OP No.1 despite service has nothing to say in this regard and admits the complaint of the complainant. The act and conduct of OP No.1 proves the case of the complainant against OP No.1 and further proves that OP No.1 is deficient in providing service to the complainant.
9. As regard to OP No.2, OP No.2 has admitted in the reply that the mobile of the complainant has some problem on 15.07.2016 and after repairs it was ready to be delivered on 30.09.2016 but OP No.2 has not informed the complainant about correct status of his mobile phone.
10. Keeping in view the above discussion, we hold that both the OPs are deficient in providing service to the complainant. Therefore, OP No.2 is directed to provide to the complainant his already repaired phone which is lying with OP No.2 and further both the OPs are directed to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) as lump sum compensation for mental agony and inconvenience caused. The complaint is allowed accordingly.
Both the OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the aforesaid awarded compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till its actual realisation.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 22.11.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput) President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
