Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/388/2017

Vikas Kundu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi India - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Kumar Rohilla Adv.

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	388/2017
Date of Institution	:	02.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	13/11/2017

 

                                                

                                                         

Vikas Kundu s/o Sh.Balbir Singh r/o Village Kaith, Post Office Shahpur, District Panipat, Haryana. 

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Xiaomi India, Xiaomi Exclusive Service Center through his Authorize Signatory /General Manager, SCO No.2471-72, First Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh
2. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., through Authorize Signatory /General Manager, 8^th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay Marathahali-Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560103, India.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:      SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

For complainant	Sh.Manoj Kumar, Advocate.
For OP No.1	Sh.J.S.Thind, Advocate.
For OP No.2	None

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated, the complainant-Sh.Vikas Kundu purchased a Redmi Note 3 Gold 32 G Smartphone mobile phone through the OPs website for Rs.11999/- vide invoice dated 21.06.2016. He noticed that the mobile phone was not working properly with the network lost and with message of ‘No Sim Card” in handset and no memory card. He requested OP No.2 for replacement of the mobile phone but they asked him to visit the service center i.e. OP No.1 for repairs.  Accordingly, he got repaired the mobile phone on 25.03.2017 but after some time, it started giving the same problem and as such he landed the mobile phone vide job sheet (Annexure C-4) with OP No.1 who asked him to come after 7-8 days to collect the same. On 27.03.2017, he was informed by OP No.1 that the mobile phone is “out of warranty” because the same does not carry an IMEI sticker inside and informed him that they could change the motherboard with a new one at the cost of Rs.6500/- or he could take the same by paying the fees of Rs.120/-. It has further been averred that if the mobile phone don’t have the IMEI sticker inside then it is a manufacturer defect and the OP could verify the IMEI number by dialing *#06# which is universal service to identify it and he could also show the box of the mobile phone but all in vain.  It has been averred that OP No.1 refused to repair the mobile phone and to give back the same without paying Rs.120/- as processing fee and the same is still lying with the service center.  Finally, he got served a legal notice (Annexure C-5) upon OP No.2 but to no effect. 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.           In its written statement, OP No.1 has pleaded that  the mobile phone was properly tested and it was found that the IMEI sticker of the same was tampered as such it does not fall under the warranty conditions of the Xiaomi Mobiles.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant was suggested to get the motherboard replaced on payment of Rs.6500/- but he left the same with it and seeks time to respond whether he wanted to get it repaired or not.  It has further been pleaded that OP No.1 telephonically contacted the complainant to ensure that whether he wants to get the motherboard replaced or not but he wanted it to repair the mobile phone free of cost under the warranty terms.  It has been denied that it demanded any amount from the complainant. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           In its separate written statement, OP No.2 did not deny the factual matrix of the case. However, it has been pleaded that the complainant was requested to submit the product for free of cost repair and also offered him with a warranty extension of three months but he at all times refused to submit the product and instead demanded refund of the cost. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.           We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and gone through the documentary evidence on record as well as written arguments.
5.           After hearing the rival contentions of the Counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted. The plea of OP No.1 that the IMEI number of the mobile phone in question was tampered with is not convincing because there is no reason with the complainant to tamper with the same within the warranty period.  Besides this, the IMEI number of the mobile phone could very easily be identified by dialing *#06# which is a universal service to identify IMEI number.  It seems that the OPs took such a vague and false plea just to wriggle out its responsibility and liability under the warranty period towards its customers.
6.           It is a common practice, as of now days, of the Mobile Companies to deny service, within warranty period, to a common man/consumer by mentioning the tampering of the mobile handset so that it could be ousted from warranty terms and they would earn by carrying out repairs on payment basis even within the warranty period
7.           Although OP No.2 claimed to have offered to settle the matter with the complainant by providing free of cost repairs with a warranty extension of three months, as a goodwill gesture, but failed to corroborate such assertion by way of any cogent evidence on record in this regard.   On the other hand, the complainant has placed on record a copy of the legal notice served upon OP No.2 vide which he requested it to replace the mobile phone in question with a new one or to refund its price but they did not bother to redress the grievance of the complainant within the warranty period what to talk of reply the said notice. When the complainant did not get any positive response from the OPs, he was left with no other alternative just to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum to get redress his grievance. As such the OPs have committed deficiency in service by not rendering the promised services within the warranty period to the complainant.
8.           The complainant has sought replacement of the mobile handset in question without proving any manufacturing defect.  However, the law on the point is well settled that if the defect(s) can be set right by repair/replacement of part(s), there is no need to replace the machine as a whole.  As such, we are of the view that the complainant cannot be granted the relief of replacement of the mobile handset in question at this stage.
9.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed as under ;-

1. To repair the mobile phone, in question, of the complainant, free of cost, by repairing/replacing the necessary part(s), if any with fresh warranty of three months.
2. To pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) above shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment besides compliance of directions mentioned at Sr.No.(i) and (iii).

10.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

13/11/2017

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER