Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 385.
Instituted on : 16.08.2018.
Decided on : 22.09.2021.
Ankit, aged 23 years son of Sh. Raj Kumar, resident of village Kiloi, Tehsil & District Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Xiaomi India, C/o Ikeva Business Center, 8th Floor Umiya Business Bay Tower 1, Cessna Business Park, Kadubeesanahalli Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Banglore-560103.
- Beetal TeleTech Limited 1st Floor, Plot no.16 Udog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon-122015 (Haryana) through its Manager.
- Mi-Redmi, Service Centre: C.R. Institute of Law Delhi Road, Rohtak BMCP, Rohtak.
- M/s The Taneja Mobile Gallary, Opp. Jai Dayal & Sons, Gohana Stand, Rohtak through its Prop.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Jasvir Kundu, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Sandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.
Opposite party No.3 exparte.
Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone of Mi Note-4 for Rs.9200/-, vide bill dated 12.2.2018 from the respondent no.4. The above said mobile was not functioning properly from the very beginning and there were many problems in touch screen, charging, receiver no sound, calling state struck in headphone mode. In this regard, complainant made a complaint to the opposite party but he was advised to check the same at the company’s authorized service centre. On 02.08.2018, he took his mobile set to the service centre at Gurugram. After repair, the mobile again got hanged and did not work properly. Thereafter, on 09.8.2018, he approached the Global Mobile Care, C.R. Institute of Law Delhi Road, Rohtak/customer Care, and Customer Care Centre repaired the mobile and prepared a job sheet but the above said mobile was not working properly. The complainant visited many times in the above said Customer Care Center for repairing the mobile but Customer Care Official’s did not give any satisfactory answer and misbehaved with the complainant and refused to repair the said mobile. That there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2. Hence, the present complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the price of the above said mobile i.e. Rs.9200/- alongwith interest thereon from the date of purchase till payment and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of respondent No.1. The respondent no.1 authorized service centre duly received the complainant’s product, examined it for defects and informed the complainant that since unauthorized repair has been carried out in the product, the product is therefore, out of warranty and the complainant would be required to pay costs for repairing the damage caused to the product. The complainant refused to pay the costs and the product was duly returned to the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that complainant approached the various authorised service centers of the respondent no.1 on 02.09.2018 & 09.08.2018 and the authorized service centre of respondent no.1 accepted the handset out of warranty and every time an estimate was given to the complainant, but instead of making payment the complainant filed the present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that regarding lodging the complaint on 02.08.2018, the Authorize Service Centre of the answering respondent inspected the handset and found liquified/physically damaged and the complainant took back the handset and on very same day, he approached to the another centre in Gurgaon and the second Centre also received the handset out of warranty and the complainant taken back the same without repair. On 09.8.2018, he again approached to the Authorize Service Centre at Rohtak and again the Authorize Service Centre received the same from the complainant “Out of Warranty” and an estimate was given to the complainant but the complainant refused to pay the charges. The respondent no.2 is neither the manufacturer nor service provider. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party No.3 did not appear despite service and as such was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 8.10.2018 of this Forum(Now Commission).
4. Opposite party no. 4 in its reply has submitted that the complainant never approached the retailer for his complaint. The retailer has no role in repairing of handset. There is no deficiency on the part of retailer. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on 16.8.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed his evidence on 6.2.2020. Ld. Counsel for the OP no.2 made a statement on 18.10.2019 that the reply already filed on its behalf be also read in his evidence. Ld. Counsel for the OP no.4 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW4/A and closed his evidence on 18.10.2019.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that as per bill Ex.C2, the complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 12.02.2018 from the opposite party No.4 and as per job sheet/inspection sheet Ex.C3, the mobile was checked by the service centre at Gurgaon and it was found that: “handset cannot charge, receiver sound not working in calling State, stuck in headphone mode”. As per job sheet of the same date Ex.C4 also, the alleged defects were detected by the another service centre. But as per the report Ex.C3 the mobile is shown “In Warranty” and as per Ex.C4, the mobile set is shown as “Out of Warranty” whereas both the job sheets have been issued by the different service centers of the opposite parties at Gurgaon. As per job sheet Ex.C5 also, there were defects of ‘Stuck in Headphone Mode’ and ‘Cannot charge’. The defects in the mobile set appeared within 6 months of its purchase but the same could not be repaired by the opposite parties within warranty period. The contention of the opposite party No.1 & 2 is that the mobile in question was physically/liquid damaged. To prove the same opposite parties have only placed on record copy of service record Ex.R3 & Ex.R4 and photocopy of mobile Ex.R5 to Ex.R8. But from the alleged documents it is not proved that the mobile in question was physically/liquid damaged. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. As the mobile in question is used by the complainant uninterruptedly for 6 months, so the complainant is entitled for the refund of price of his mobile after deduction of 20% depreciation on it.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of mobile after 20% deduction i.e. Rs.7360/-(Rupees seven thousand three hundred and sixty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 16.08.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite party No.1 at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.1.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.09.2021
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………….
Tripti Pannu, Member.
