Punjab

Sangrur

CC/342/2017

Chiraj Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Appolojit Singh Kamalpur

22 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  342

                                                Instituted on:    17.07.2017

                                                Decided on:       22.11.2017

 

 

Chirag Singla son of Sh. Prem Deep, resident of Street No.3, Agar Nagar, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Xiomi India C/o Ikeva Business Centre, 8^th Floor, Umiaya Business, Bay Tower-1, Cessna Business Park, Kadubessanahali, Maratha Halli, Sarajapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore-560103 through its authorised signatory.

2.             Gaurav Communication, Near Namdev Gurudwara, Near Flour Mill, Sunam through its proprietor/partner.

3.             WS Retail Services Private Limited, Registered Office: Ozone Manay Tech Park, No.56/18, B-Block, 9^th Floor, Garvebhaviplya, Hosur Road, Banglore, through its Managing Director.

4.             Flipkart India Private Limited, Bilaspur Pataudi Road, Near Bilaspur Chowk at NH-8, Opposite TATA Service Centre, Bilaspur (Haryana) through its Managing Director.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Apolojit Singh, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Shri Sandip Kumar Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.3&4         :               Shri J.S.Moudgill, Adv.

For OP No.2             :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member   

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.               Shri Chirag Singla, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one mobile Redmi Note 3 having IMEI number 862188033783945/862188033783952. Further case of the complainant is that on 13.5.2017, the mobile set in question developed problem of auto switch off while the complainant called the mobile phone and thereafter, the complainant tried to switch on the same, but all in vain.  It is further averred in the complaint that thereafter the complainant immediately approached OP number 2 for removing the defect in the mobile set, who issued job sheet dated 13.5.2017 to the complainant and told to come after one week, but it was not set right despite repeated visits of the complainant to the OPs.  By this way, the complainant has been harassed a lot by the OPs. Thus, alleging   deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the defective mobile set in question with a new one  or to refund the price of the mobile set or and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.               In reply filed by OP number 1, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question vide invoice dated 21.7.2016.  It is stated that on 2.12.2016, the complainant approached the OP number 1 with a complaint regarding the product and was issued job sheet for the same. It is stated further that the product is out of warranty as it had suffered physical damage. It is stated that the product has no warranty if any damage occurs in/on outer surface of the product, including but not limited to cracks, dents or scratches on the exterior cases, screens, camera lenses, buttons and other attachments. It is stated further that on 2.12.2016, when the mobile set in question was examined and the complainant was duly intimated that the product has suffered physical damage and it is out  of warranty.

 

3.               In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up that the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Forum and has filed the complaint by concocting a false story, that the main grievance of the complaint relates to after sales and service issue of the product and that there has been no dispute contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits,  it is stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP. Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.               In reply filed by OP number 4, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed with a malfide intention, that the OP is neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the mobile phone and hence the alleged defect in the product cannot be associated with the working of the OP and that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. On merits,  the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.  It is stated that the OP never despatched the product to the complainant nor any payment was ever received.  It is stated that the service is provided by the seller of the product. 

 

5.               Record shows that the OP number 2 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 2 was proceeded exparte.

 

6.               The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of bill, Ex.C-2 copy of job order and Ex.C-3 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit along with Annexure Ex.3/A and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.Op4/1 affidavit, Ex.OP4/2 copy of resolution and closed evidence. 

 

7.               We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

8.                 Ex.C-1 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.11,999/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question and availed the services of the OP number 4, which has been manufactured by OP number 1, whereas OP number 2 is the service centre of OP number 2.

 

9.               In the present case, the complainant has alleged that during the warranty period on 13.5.2017 the set in question suffered the problem of auto switch off while the complainant called the mobile phone and thereafter he tried to switch on the same, and as such he approached OP number 2,  but nothing was done by the OP number 2 despite repeated visits of the complainant. Further to show that the mobile set in question is defective one, the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-2 the copy of service order, which shows that there was problem of ‘cannot power on’.  On the other hand,  the OPs have produced nothing on the record to show that the mobile set in question is in working order or it has no problem therein.    As such, we are of the considered opinion that the mobile set in question became defective during the warranty period, which was even not repaired by the Ops despite repeatedly visiting of the complainant to the OP number 2.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the same was not repaired nor the Ops showed any interest during the present proceedings to get the same repaired at their own. As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.

 

10.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with a new one. The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and  litigation expenses.

 

11.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                November 22, 2017.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                     (Sarita Garg)

                                                         Member

 

 

 

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                        Member