Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/363/2017

Jatinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

XIAOMI India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

08 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/363/2017
Date of Institution	:	27/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	08/12/2017

 

Jatinder Singh r/o H.No.482, Hallo Majra, Near Hanuman Mandir, 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 560103 through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.

2.     HCL Services Ltd., (MI Exclusive Centre), SCO No.2471-2472, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

3.     Same Retails Pvt. Ltd., 161, Ground Floor, Sector-4, MDC, Panchkula, through its Managing Director.

4.     B2X-Service Centre, Quite Office No.1, First Floor, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

……Opposite Parties

 

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

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Vipul Sharma, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. Jasdev S. Thind, Counsel for OP-2
	:	Sh. Rohit Kumar, Counsel for OP-3
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-4.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a REDMI 3 S mobile phone through online and made the payment of Rs.8,999/- upon delivery.  The said mobile carried warranty of one year.  After two months, the complainant started facing problem with the mobile for which it was taken to OP-2 on 17.2.2017 and the mobile charger was changed. The complainant again faced similar problem of charging on 27.2.2017 and it was again taken to OP-2 upon which software of the mobile was updated. The complainant again faced similar problem of charging and a new problem of overheating on 21.3.2017 and the same was given for repairs to OP-4 which was returned after repairs.  However, on the very next day, the mobile again gave similar problem of overheating and non-charging and the same was given to OP-4 for repairs on 22.3.2017 and since then the same is lying with it.  As per the complainant, the mobile seems to be suffering from some inherent manufacturing defect, but, the OPs are not replacing the mobile, though the same is within warranty.  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 admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile in question on 8.12.2016. It has been averred that whenever the complainant approached its authorised service centres, they received the product, examined the same for defects and repaired it as necessary, in accordance with the warranty terms and conditions.  It has been contended that the complainant approached OP-1 with the complaint that the issues in the product were still persisting and OP-1 requested the complainant to submit the product for necessary technical examination so that any necessary repair/replacement of the defect could be carried out, but, he refused and insisted on refund/replacement. 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 reply has averred that it has responded responsibly to the complaints of the complainant and the handset was tested properly.  The complainant was told that the fault in the handset was due to use of unauthorized mode of charging.  It has been denied that there is any inherent manufacturing defect in the handset. It has been stated that OP-2 is not concerned with any replacement or refund as it is only a service centre and not the manufacturer. 
4.         OP-3 in its separate reply has admitted the purchase of the mobile set in question through online.  It has been averred that OP-3 is an online reseller registered on Flipkart.com and it is not the manufacturer. The role of OP-3 was only limited to reselling the products of various manufacturers and its role came to end as soon as the product was delivered at the address provided by the customer.  It has been stated that dealer cannot be held liable for defect in the goods/products.
5.         In view of the endorsement made by learned counsel for the OP-4, he adopted the written reply filed by OP-1 on behalf of OP-4 also.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
7.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsel for the OPs.
8.         The sale of the handset in question and the repairs vide Annexure C-2 to C-5 are admitted by the parties. The sole grouse of the complainant is that he purchased the handset on 8.12.2016 vide Annexure C-1 through online which was sold by OP-3. The necessary repairs were conducted by OP-2 and at present the handset is lying in possession of OP-4 for the necessary repairs. Till date, neither the handset has been repaired nor returned to the complainant.  Hence, is the present complaint.
9.         A perusal of the job sheet Annexure C-2 reveals that the handset in question got defective within two months of purchase and the same was submitted to OP-2 on 17.2.2017.  Again the mobile handset had to be handed over to OP-2 vide Annexure C-3 on 27.2.2017 within a few days of the previous repairs.  Again vide Annexure C-4 and C-5, the handset was handed over to OP-4 on 21.3.2017 and 22.3.2017 respectively and after that neither the same has been repaired nor returned to the complainant. 
10.         Importantly, the complainant purchased the handset in question to facilitate himself and not to visit the service centre time and again.  But, in the present case, the OPs sold him such a sub-standard product that it could not work even during the warranty period of one year and the same kind of fault was occurring time and again.  Therefore, the complainant was forced to visit the service centre and in absence of proper repairs by the service centre, he was unnecessarily forced to indulge in the present litigation. Hence, the act of the OPs in selling a substandard product to the complainant and later on non-providing proper services during the warranty period and also keeping the same in their possession proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part which certainly has caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
11.         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.8,999/- 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.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

12.         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.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
08/12/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member