Haryana

Karnal

CC/607/2021

Anil Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ravi Mehta

19 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 607 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.27.10.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:19.10.2022

 

Anil Grover son of JD Grover, resident of house no.494, Sector 8, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. 8^th floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay, Marathahalli, Sarjapur, outer Ring Road, Bangluru, Karnataka-560103.

 

2.     Utkrisht Trade Solution Pvt. Ltd. office at Khasra no.14/6 min, 7 min, 13 min, 14,15,17, 18 min, 23,24,25, 16/1, 2,9,10,11,12/1, 17/3,4,5,6,7,8,11/2, 12,1 3,14, 15 situated on village Binola, Gurgaon, Haryana 122413.

 

3.     JMD Communication authorized service center SCO 24-25, Mugal canal Karnal through its authorized person.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Sh. Ravi, counsel for complainant.

                    Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the OPs no.1& 3.

                    Sh. Amit Sachdeva, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that OP allured the complainant through its advertisement online as well as in newspaper and assured that the product of xiaomi company are of high quality and there is no problem in the mobile and on the assurance complainant ordered Mi 10T (Lunar Silver, 128 gb) on 04.11.2020 which was received to the complainant on 08.11.2020 by advance payment of Rs.35046/- and complainant also pay an amount of Rs.1752/- for insurance of the said mobile set. After sometime, the mobile set starting losing network and complainant was unable to use the same and he approached the OP no.3 i.e. service centre of the company in the month of April, 2021 and OP asked the complainant to change the sim and accordingly complainant changed the sim but problem still the same. Thereafter, due to lock down in the month of April end and whole May, complainant was unable to visit the service centre as the same was closed due to lockdown. Thereafter, mobile touch started creating problem and touch automatically work and during unlock the complainant visited the service OP no.3 on 02.06.2021 and this time they issued the job sheet and diagnose the mobile and told the complainant now they have repaired the mobile and changed the parts. The mobile set worked for sometime and thereafter in the month of August 2021 mobile again started creating problems now this time hanging internet wifi not working and network down problem again. Complainant again approached the OP no.3 on 25.08.2021 and reported the matter and this time also OP no.1 repaired the mobile set and assured that now complainant will not face any issue but after sometime the problem occurred again and this time network is totally drop and complainant is unabled to use the mobile. On 16.10.2021 complainant again approached the OP no.3 and narrated the manufacturing defects in the unit and asked the OPs to replace the same or to refund the price of the mobile set but OPs did not listen the request of complainant and refused to replace the mobile. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OP no.2 via toll free number for the same defect and requested to get the same replaced but they told to visit the service centre of manufacturer and complainant visited the service centre and service engineer told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile and it will be replaced after sometime. But OPs did nothing on the request of the complainant and did not give any solution. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version stating therein that on June 02, 2021 the complainant approached the OP for the first time with issues related to the product. Complainant informed the technician of the authorized service centre of the OP no.1 that the complainant was facing issue related to the product. The service engineer duly recorded the issue and requested the complainant to wait until the examination/inspection is completed. After examining and reviewing the product at the service centre, the defects related to the product was duly repaired for free of cost as per warranty provisions by the technicians of the authorized service centre of the OP no.1 as per the standard applicable warranty conditions and the product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition as can be ascertained from service job sheet no.WXIN2106020001753. On August 25, 2021 the complainant again approached the OP no.3 i.e. service centre of OP no.1with issues related to the product. The service engineer duly recorded the issue and requested to wait until the examination/inspection is completed. After examining and reviewing the product, the defects related to the product was duly repaired for free of cost as per warranty provisions and the product was duly returned to the complainant. On October 16, 2021, complainant again approached the OP no.3 with regard to defect in the unit in question. This time also OP no.3 repaired the mobile and handed over to the complainant. It is further stated that complainant has filed the present complaint to unnecessarily harass the OP. A mere allegations by the complainant has not in any way proved or demonstrated that the product is presently suffering from a defect and such defect is a manufacturing defect. In the absence of any evidence that the product purchased by the complainant is presently in a defective state (ii) that such defect is a manufacturing defect and the product was not repaired by the authorized service centre of the OP no.1. The complainant has failed to show any manufacturing defect in the handset by way of technical evidence of any technical expert/reputed technical laboratory. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 in his reply stated that OP is carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured/produced by others. The OP is a registered seller on the website ‘flipkart.com” and sells products of other manufacturers, traders, etc. OP has acquired good market reputation for its range of products offered and for its exceptional customer support. OP is not engaged in the sale of any goods manufacturer or produced by its own. OP is engaged in sale of goods manufactured and produced by other manufacturer. OP has a separate and distinct identity from that of the manufacturer of the product i.e. Xiaomi technology Indi Pvt. Ltd. and there is no relation of principal and agent between xiaomi technology and OP no.2. The grievance of the complainant is against the manufacturer i.e. OP no.1 and service centre i.e. OP no.3 for not providing after sales service. The complainant approached the OPs no.1 and 3 several times but they not resolve the issue of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Learned counsel for the OP no.3 has suffered a separate statement that written statement filed by OP no.1 be read as written statement of OP no.3.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill dated 18.10.2020 Ex.C1, copy of insurance premium receipt Ex.C2, copies of job sheets dated 02.06.2021, 25.08.2021, 16.10.2021 Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 27.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs no.1 and 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ayush Ex.OPW2/A, copy of warranty Ex.OP1, copy of warranty statement Ex.OP2, copy of job sheets Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 10.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for OP no.2 has suffered a separate statement to the effect that written version of OP no.2 be read the evidence of OP no.2.

9.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

10.           Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant has purchased one mobile set (online) make Mi 10T on 04.11.2020 through OP no.2 by advance payment of Rs.35046/- and he had also paid an amount of Rs.1752/- for insurance of the said mobile set. After sometime, the mobile set starting losing network and complainant was unable to use the same. He approached the OP no.3 i.e. service centre of the company in the month of April, 2021 and OP asked the complainant to change the sim and accordingly complainant changed the sim but problem still remained the same. Thereafter, on 02.06.2021, 25.08.2021 and 16.10.2021 complainant approached the OP no.3 for the said problem, the OP no.3 was failed to repair the mobile set despite its best efforts and the problem in the mobile set remained as it is and he again approached the service centre for repair of the mobile set, service centre again repaired the mobile set but the defect was not removed. He further argued that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile set and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

11.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs no.1 and 3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant first time approached the OP no.3 i.e. service centre 02.06.2021 with issues related to the product. The defects related to the product was duly repaired for free of cost as per warranty On 25.08.2021 complainant again approached the OP no.3 with issues related to the product. The service engineer checked the mobile and repaired the same at free of cost as per warranty provisions. Lateron, complainant again approached the OP no.3 on 16.10.2021, complainant again approached the OP no.3 with regard to defect in the unit in question. This time also OP no.3 repaired the mobile and handed over to the complainant. He further argued that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set. In the absence of any evidence it cannot be said that the product purchased by the complainant is having manufacturing defect and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           Learned counsel for OP no.2 while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP is carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured/produced by others. OP no.2 is only a facilitator not a manufacturer of the product. All the products on platform of OP no.2 are sold by third party sellers, who avail of the online marketplace services provided by OP no.2, on terms decided by the respective sellers only. There is no relation of principal and agent between xiaomi technology and OP no.2. The grievance of the complainant is against the manufacturer i.e. OP no.1 and service centre i.e. OP no.3 for not providing after sales service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

13.           Admittedly, on 04.11.2020 complainant purchased a mobile make Mi 10T through OP no.2 and has made payment amounting to Rs.35046/-. After sometime the unit started giving problem. It is admitted by OPs no.1 and 3 in their written statement that on 02.06.2021, 25.08.2021 and 16.10.2021 complainant approached the service centre i.e. OP no.3 and made complaint about the problem in the mobile set i.e. hanging problem, internet sometime slow working, network updown. OP no.3 kept the mobile set and issued the job sheet dated 02.06.2021, 25.08.2021 and 16.10.2021 Ex.C1 to Ex.C3/Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP5.

10.           To prove his version, the complainant has placed on the file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of warranty term Ex.C2  and three job sheets Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. The OPs no.1 and 3 has admitted about the said complaints in their written version. It is pertinent to mention here that inspite of repairing the mobile set thrice the problem in the mobile set could not be removed by the official of the OPs. The onus to prove its version lies upon the OPs but OPs have miserably failed to prove its case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Inspite of removing the defects by the service centre, the problems remains same, which clearly indicates that the product in question is having manufacturing defect. It has also been proved from the record that the problem had occurred in the mobile set from the very beginning. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the mobile set in question is having a manufacturing defect and the OPs have failed to resolve the problem of the complainant. Hence the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service.

11.           The OP no.2 has taken a plea that it is only a platform to book the product and that the products are being sold by the sellers, therefore, it has no responsibility of any kind. In this regard, we are of the considered view that the sellers have been authorized by the OP No.2. By merely saying that OP No.2 has no responsibility, the OP No.2 cannot escape from its liability and this plea taken by OP No.2 has no force.

12.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same cost, make and model which was purchased by the complainant.  However, it is hereby made clear if the mobile set of the same make and model is not available with the OPs, then the OPs will return the cost of the mobile set i.e. Rs.35046/- to the complainant.  We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. All the OPs are jointly and severally liable. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:19.10.2022                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                         Member