Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/923/2019

Aman Jaspal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shashank Shekhar Sharma Adv.

17 Nov 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Aman Jaspal s/o Sh.Rajesh Jaspal r/o H.No.519, Sector 48-A, Pancham Enclave, Chandigarh -190047 (anshuman. jaspal@gmail.com).

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Xiaomi Technology India Private Ltd., Orchid Block E, Ground Floor, Embassy Tech Village, Marathahalli –Sarjapur Outer Ring Rd., Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560103 through its Managing Director (2.     Sant Ram Enterprises, SCO 12, First Floor, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh -160019.

…. Opposite Parties

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that  on 29.08.2018 he ordered for a mobile phone make POCO F1 with product code TLD 531 via online shopping from Flipkart i.e. OP for his personal use and occupation by paying Rs.20,999/- through debit card.  He was issued Invoice (Annexure C-1).  It has further been averred that from the very date of its purchase,  he started facing problems in its functioning as it started switch off on its own while it’s being operated, the physical buttons on the phone would stop working all of a sudden.  On 03.10.2018, the headphone jack of the mobile phone stopped working and was unable to detect the headphone due to which he was not able to listen the music and the same was replaced by the Service Center vide job card dated 05.10.2018 (Annexure C-3).  Subsequently, it started showing a yellow patch on the screen due to which regular use of the same became difficult and the screen was replaced by the Service Center vide job card dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure C-4).  Later on, the same problem was cropped up and again its screen was replaced by the Service Center vide job card dated 12.06.2019 (Annexure C-5). Thereafter, he started facing problem in the physical key of the phone and he approached the Service Center to get the problem rectified on 26.06.2019 but they told him that the spare parts to fix the physical button on the phone were not available due to which the status of rectification is still kept pending.  Thereafter, he again took the mobile phone to the Service Center after facing recurring problems in its day to day use and to his dismay and shock, he was told that the same was opened and repaired outside due to which the warranty had expired. It has further been averred that the mobile phone is not as per the description given by the manufacturer on the website and is having some manufacturing defect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.       
2.         In its written statement, OP No.1 while admitting the factual matrix of the case has stated that the technician of the Service Center, after examining and reviewing the product had resolved the issue as and when the complainant approached.  It has further been pleaded that on 26.06.2019, the complainant approached the Service Center and after examining and reviewing the product, it was ascertained that the Flexible Printed Circuit (FPC) of the product was damaged at his hands i.e. customer induced damage/physical damage and the same can be ascertained from the photograph  attached as Annexure F and, therefore, he was liable to pay the repair costs as the same was not covered under the standard warranty terms and conditions of the product. It has further been pleaded that the complainant paid the repair cost and the product was repaired and delivered to him in a proper working condition to which he did not object.  It has been denied that the mobile phone is having some manufacturing defect. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         From the perusal of the Service Orders/Record annexed with the complaint as Annexures C-3 to C-5, it is established that as and when the complainant raised any issue in the product, the same was promptly attended to by the Service Center of OP No.1 either by repairing the product or by replacing the defective part(s), if required, to his satisfaction as per the standard terms and conditions of the product.
5.         As regards the plea of the complainant that the OPs have failed to resolve the issue in the product raised vide service order dated 26.06.2019 (Annexure C-6) is concerned,  the same relates customer induced damage/physical damage which is not covered under the standard warranty of terms and conditions of the product.  We are, thus, of the considered view that the OPs have rightly charged the complainant for repairing the said defect and the said charges were paid by the complainant on his own without raising any protest while accepting the product as is evident from the Service Record attached with the written statement as Annexure E-5.  In addition to this, the complainant has not been able to place on record any documentary evidence to show that thereafter he ever approached the OPs with regard to the functioning of the mobile phone. Moreover, no expert evidence has been led by him to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile phone, as alleged.  Thus, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
6.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
7.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.