Complaint Case No. CC/1/2022 | ( Date of Filing : 03 Jan 2022 ) |
| | 1. GIRISH BALKRISHNA HOMKAR | AGE 53 YEARS, 250 BCMC LAYOUT, RAGHUVANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560062 | BENGALURU URBAN | KARNATAKA |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
Versus | 1. XIAOMI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD | REPRESENTED BY GRIEVANCE OFFICER, SELLER OF MI BRAND SMARTPHONES, GROUND FLOOR, AKR INFINITY, KUDLU GATE, KRISHNA REDDY INDUSTRIAL AREA, HOSAPALAYA, MUNESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560068 | BENGALURU URBAN | KARNATAKA | 2. SMART CARE ELECTRO SERVICES | REPRESENTED BY MR. SELVARAJ.S, MANAGER IN-CHARGE, SERVICE CENTRE OF MI BRAND SMARTPHONES, 225/Y, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, 4TH PHASE, 7TH BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE, OPP. YES BANK, NEAR KAMAKYA THEATRE | BENGALURU-560085 | KARNATAKA |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
Final Order / Judgement | Complaint filed on: 03:01.2022 | Disposed on:22.02.2023 |
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN) DATED 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 PRESENT:- SMT.M.SHOBHA | : | PRESIDENT | SMT. SUMA ANIL KUMAR | : | MEMBER | SMT. JYOTHI.N | : | MEMBER |
COMPLAINANT | Girish Balakrishna Honkar Aged about 53 years, 250, BCMC layout, Raghuvanahalli, Bengaluru-560062 -560099 -
| | OPPOSITE PARTY | - Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by Grievance officer, Seller of MI Branch Smartphones, Ground floor, AKR Infinity, Kudlu Gate, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, Hosapalaya, Muneshwaranagar, Bengaluru-560068 (Sri Chidananda.S, Adv.,) - Smart Care Electro Services,
Rep.by Mr.Selvaraja S., Managing in-charge, Service Centre of MI Brand smartphones, 225/Y, 1st floor, 2nd Main, 4th Phase, 7th block, BSK 3rd stage, Opp. Yes Bank, Near Kamakya Theatre, Bengaluru-560085 (Inperson) |
ORDER SMT. SUMA ANIL KUMAR, MEMBER - The complainant has filed this complaint under section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019 against the Opposite parties for the reliefs
- To Direct the OPs to repair the display of the laptop free of cost within warranty without causing any other damage to it
- Or direct to replace the laptop with new one or refund the price of the laptop paid
- And pass such other orders to meet the ends of justice.
- The brief facts of the case of the complaints are as under:
The complainant has filed this complainant through online stating that the complainant had bought/purchased MI Notebook 14” laptop for an amount of Rs.41,000/- from OP1 by placing online order through Amazon and is delivered by Appario retail as per enclosed invoice number:IN-BLR 72549725 and invoice details:KA-BLR7-1034-2021 with a warranty period of 01 year. - On the 1st week of May 2021, the complainant notice a blur in the display of laptop and little pressing showed internal crack/damage to the display and the display became un-viewable and hence laptop unusable. The complainant sought the support of MI online chat and explained the issue and received call and was advised to visit the nearest service centre after covid-19 lockdown was lifted as there was lockdown during that period in the city.
- Accordingly, the complainant visited Smart care Electro Service centre of OP-2 centre on 9th July 2021 with the laptop. The said laptop was examined in the service center, said that the damage was caused by the complainant and it cannot be repaired under warranty. They provided a service record after payment of Rs.118/- with an estimation of Rs.9,557/- for repair. The complainant tried to explain that there was no external/physical damage such as scratches or cracks on the screen but it went in vain.
- The complainant through email to MI India explained the problem by enclosing photographs of LCD screen along with couple of reminders, emails between July and August 2021, but they too said that it does not come under warranty. Under these circumstances the complainant registered a complaint on 11th August 2021 through edhakil vide complaint no.2896450 for repair, replace or refund of the entire amount.
- On issue of the notice to OPs, OP1 appeared before this commission through their counsel and filed version. There is no representation by OP-2.
- OP1 has admitted that to the facts that to the purchase of complainant of the product is true and also that OP2 is a service provider to OP1. OP1 submits his opinion that he is not liable to any replacement, repair of the said product as it does not fall under the terms and conditions of the warranty issued to the complainant along with the product while purchase and it is a physical damage caused by the complainant and the OP is not liable to it.
- In order to prove his contentions has filed his affidavit evidence along with list of documents Exhibits P1 to P3. OP-1 has filed exhibits-A to D along with version.
- Heard complainant arguments. OP-1 & 2 failed to submit their arguments.
- The following points do arise for our consideration are as under:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
- What order?
- Our answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1:-Affirmative Point no.2:- Affirmative in part. Point No.3:-As per the final order. REASONS - Point Nos.1 and 2:. These two points are interrelated and hence they have taken up for common discussion.
- The complainant filed his affidavit evidence by reiterating all the allegations made in the complaint as stated above.
- The complainant has relied on Ex.P1 to P3. Ex.P1 is the copy of invoice of the purchased laptop dt.11.08.2020 vide no:IN-BLR7-2549725. Ex.P2 is a copy of photos of the laptop. Ex.P3 is a copy of service record dt.09.07.2021 by Smart Care Electro Services e-mail communication with Xiaomi India customer support, INGRAM complaint with consumer helpline and email sent to grievance officer of Xiaomi India Ltd. dt.11.08.2021.
- It is clear that the complainant has purchased the Xiaomi Laptop MI 40 inch on 11.08.2020 for a amount of Rs.41,001.01/- from OP through Amazon.in according to the copy of invoice submitted by the complainant as Ex.P1. After 08 months the complainant noticed a blur in the display and the display was un-viewable. He called for service, but was asked to come after Covid-19 lockdown, so he visited the smartcare electro service centre on 09.08.2021, but they said that screen is not covered under the warranty terms and conditions of the company issued an invoice of Rs.9,957/- for repair as per Ex.P-3.
- The OP has also submitted documents i.e. the photo of the screen which is showing no display at all, a copy of the terms and conditions of the warranty and copy of limited warranty statement and service record.
- The terms and conditions of the warranty which says that
“In the event of repair/replacement of any parts of the unit, this warranty will thereafter continue and remain in force only for the unexpired period of the warranty from the date of purchase. More ever, the time taken for repair/replacement whether under the warranty of otherwise shall not be excluded from the warranty period. In case of any damage during the transit attributable to the customer, the product shall be repaired by the concerned service centre on chargeable basis and warranty for unexpected period of continue from date of purchase. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.Ltd. (Company) or its authorized service centre reserves the right to retain any parts or components replaced of its discretion, in the event of a defect being noticed in the equipment during the warrant period. Replacement of parts would be purely at the discretion of the company, alone. In case the replacement of the entire unit is being made, (at the sole discretion of the company), the same model shall be replaced and in the event, such model has been discontinued, it shall be replaced with the equivalent model as deemed by the company.” - As per the terms and conditions, the claim for the repair fall well within the warranty period. As per the defect is concerned neither company nor the service centre has given any evidence to prove that the damage is caused by the complainant as there is no external damage seen such as any scratches or cracks on the screen due to which damage can be caused to the display of the screen by observing the photos submitted. In the list of the limited warranty statement produced by the OP, the terms and conditions of warranty of Handset, Air purifier, MI smart water purifier, LED smart TV and accessory products are mentioned. but there is no details about the laptops. Refusal to pay, repair or replace the screen amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, both the OPs jointly are liable for the damages caused to the complainant.
- Under these circumstances, the complainant is entitled for repair, replacement or refund of the said screen of the laptop and liable for litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, we answer point no.1 in affirmative and Point no.2 partly in affirmative.
- Point no.3:-. In view of the above discussions referred above, we proceed to pass the following
O R D E R - The complaint is allowed in part.
- The OPs are directed to repair or replace the MI Notebook 14’’ laptop screen through OP-2 or refund of the amount of Rs.34,746/- and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony.
- The OP-1 & 2 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
- Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties, and return the spare pleadings and documents to the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 22nd day of February, 2023) (JYOTHI.N) MEMBER | (SUMA ANIL KUMAR) MEMBER | (M.SHOBHA) PRESIDENT |
Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows: 1. | P1: Copy of Tax Invoice | 2. | P2: Bunch of copies of photos of Laptop | 3. | P3: Copy of service record. |
Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 : 1. | Doc-1: Copy of photographs taken at the time of inspection. | 2. | Doc-2 &3: The copy of terms and conditions. | 3. | Doc-3: Copy of service record |
(JYOTHI.N) MEMBER | (SUMA ANIL KUMAR) MEMBER | (M.SHOBHA) PRESIDENT |
*SKA | |