Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/180/2017

Imran Ahamad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi India - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar, Adv.

25 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                       

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/180/2017
Date of Institution	:	28/02/2017
Date of Decision	:	25/01/2018

 

Imran Ahamad s/o Shamin c/o Taj Hair Dresser, Opposite Government Senior Secondary School, Mariwala Town, 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 56103 through its Managing Director/ Authorised Signatory.

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

3.     Rocket Kommerce LLP, 4^th Floor, Plot Nos.183 to 197 & 254 to 258, Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bommasandra, Bangalore 562106 through its Managing Director.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Parshant Sethi, Counsel for OP-2 as proxy counsel for Sh. Vipul Sharma, Counsel for OP-1
	:	OP-3 ex-parte.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant made online purchase of a Redmi Note 3 (Grey 16G Prime) mobile phone by paying an amount of Rs.9,999/-. The complainant started facing problems and after 20 days it had to be taken to OP-2 and OP-2 changed the motherboard. The complainant again faced similar problem in October 2016 and OP-2 changed the software of the same. Again the problem persisted and the mobile was given to OP-3 for repairs. The complainant sent an email to OP-2 and again motherboard of the mobile was changed and new IMEI number was mentioned and the mobile was returned to the complainant on 16.11.2016.  Thereafter vide emails dated 25.11.2016 and 12.12.2016, the complainant requested the OPs for replacement, but the OPs refused stating that the mobile could only be replaced within 10 days. As per the complainant, there is some inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP-1 in its written reply has not disputed the factual matrix. It has been averred that OP-2 duly repaired the product of the complainant and delivered the same in proper working condition to him on both occasions when it was submitted with OP-2.  It has been stated that the complainant was repeatedly requested to visit any of the authorised service centre for necessary technical examination so that necessary repair/ replacement could be carried out, if necessary, as per the applicable terms and conditions. However, the complainant insisted on getting a replacement or refund.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OP-2 in its separate written statement has not disputed the factual matrix. It has been stated that the faults in the said handset were removed and the complainant on every visit left the service centre of OP-2 with satisfied service.  It has been averred that OP-2 is not responsible for any repairs done by OP-3 as it was not the authorised service centre of the manufacturing company.  The handset in question could not be replaced as the same was submitted to OP-3 for repairs.  It has been contended that OP-2 is not liable and responsible for replacement or refund of the handset as it is just a service centre.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         OP-3 did not appear despite due service, therefore, vide order dated 26.4.2017, it was proceeded ex-parte.
5.         The contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the contesting parties.
7.         It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant purchased one Xiaomi (Redmi Note 3 Grey 16G) handset from OP-3 for Rs.9,999/- on 2.4.2016 with one year warranty. As per the case of the complainant, the handset in question started facing the problem within 20 days of its purchase and, therefore, OP-2 (service centre) changed the motherboard and made an endorsement on the bill itself about the new IMEI number. However, as per the case of the complainant and job sheet dated 27.10.2016 (Annexure C-3), the handset in question again faced problem within a few months of its usage and again the motherboard of the mobile was changed as mentioned on the invoice itself. Annexure C-4 and C-5 are the emails by the complainant to the OPs with a request for replacement of the mobile, but, the matter could not be resolved till date.  Hence, is the present complaint.
8.         The stand taken by OP-1, the manufacturer, is that as and when the complainant approached the authorised service centre for necessary repairs, the same were done, but, the complainant insisted on getting the replacement or refund which, as per the terms and conditions, is not possible. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on its part.
9.         On the other hand, the stand taken by OP-2 (service centre) is that it is authorised only for the repairs and not for the replacement/refund.  As such, OP-2 in no way is deficient in providing services to the complainant.
10.         OP-3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte.  This act of OP-3 draws an adverse inference against it.  The non-appearance of OP-3 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted qua OP-3.
11.         Evidently, as per Annexure C-1 and from the case of the complainant, it is quite clear that the motherboard of the handset in question was changed twice. The mention of IMEI number over Annexure C-1 makes it evident too.  However, despite change of a major part of the handset i.e. the motherboard that too twice, the product in question again suffered with same problem as per Annexure C-3. We feel that the complainant had purchased the handset in question to facilitate himself and not to approach the service center time and again for the change of the motherboard or otherwise. The replacement of the motherboard two times itself is a major service which shows that the handset in question was suffering with some major fault which could not be rectified.  Despite replacement of the motherboard twice, recurrence of the fault clearly proves that the complainant was sold a substandard product which did not have life even of one year. The condition of the handset as per Annexure C-3 job sheet is ‘good appearance’ which shows that the same was not mishandled by the complainant.  Hence, the act of the OPs for selling a substandard product to the complainant proves deficiency in service on their part which certainly caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
12.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the invoice value of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.9,999/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.4,000/- as costs of litigation.

13.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
25/01/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member