Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/615/2018

Ajay Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi India - Opp.Party(s)

Shashikant Gupta

05 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/615/2018
Date of Institution	:	30/11/2018
Date of Decision	:	05/11/2019

 

Ajay Sharma aged about 48 years S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma, R/o H.No. 2221/A, Sector 63, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1.      Xiaomi India, C/o Ikeva Business Centre, 8^th Floor, Umiya Business, Bay Tower, 1 Cessna Business Park, Kadubeesanahalli, Maarathahalli – Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 103, through its Managing Director/Auth. Signatory.

 

2.      QDIGI Services Limited, SCO 2471-72, First Floor, Sector              22-C, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Manager.

 

3.      Anmol Watches and Electronics (P) Limited, SCO 1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Proprietor/ Partner.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Parshant Sethi, Vice Counsel for Sh. Shashikant Gupta, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Atul Goyal, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         In brief, the Complainant had purchased one Xiaomi MI Redmi MI A1 Black 64 GB mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 on 22.12.2017 after paying Rs.13,590/- (Annexure C-1). The said mobile handset came with an accompanying warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase which covered all the manufacturing defects in the said handset. In the month of Feb. 2018, due to inherent manufacturing defect in the said handset, Complainant started facing problem in the mobile handset. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 who told him to continue to use the said set for some more time and assured that the handset would be replaced with a new one as and when a new handset of the same make and model is received and that a requisition in this regard shall be sent. However, nothing was heard by the Complainant from the side of Opposite Party No.2. As the Complainant continued to face the problems in the handset, he approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 20.11.2018, who took the handset in their custody for repair/upgradation vide job sheet Annexure C-2 with the complaints of battery back-up faults and while calling than app automatic open. The days converted into months, but Opposite Party No.2 does not pay any heed to handover the handset to the Complainant and eventually, Opposite Party No.2 refused to replace the handset and rather misbehaved with the Complainant. 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.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 contested the complaint and filed its reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that after examining and reviewing the product at the authorized service center of Opposite Party No.1, the Technicians of the authorized service centre ascertained that the product is facing issue related to software update. The Technicians of the authorized service centre of the Opposite Party No.1 duly repaired the product as per the standard warranty conditions and duly returned the product to the Complainant in proper working condition. Thus, 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.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the Parties.
6.         It is the case of the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant when approached its authorized service center, his product was duly received, examined for defects and repaired as necessary in accordance with the warranty terms and conditions as applicable and under which the product was sold. The onus to prove the same was on the Opposite Party No.1. However, the Opposite Party No.1 has miserably failed to adduce any cogent, convincing and reliable documentary evidence, much less any technical report/affidavit of the concerned Technician/Engineer who examined and repaired the handset, in order to substantiate its claim that the handset was duly repaired as per the standard warranty conditions. In the absence of which the assertions made by the Opposite Party No.1 are bald and thus, cannot be believed.
7.         Significantly, the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
8.         In the present circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine as he has been made to run from pillar to post for no fault on his part. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Parties have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as they ought to have resolved the matter by promptly arranging the replacement of the handset with a new one or to get the handset of the Complainant repaired, which they failed to do and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against them.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed:-

[a]    To refund Rs.13,590/- to the Complainant along with interest @7% p.a. from 22.12.2017, till realization;

[b]    To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

[c]    To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

10.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from 22.12.2017, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].
11.         The Complainant shall return the Mobile handset in question to the Opposite Parties after the compliance of the order.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

05/11/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”