Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/940/2016

Khushboo Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

09 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Khushboo Aggarwal d/o Ishwar Aggarwal r/o 2027, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Xioami Technology India Pvt. Ltd., through its Manager/Authorized Representative, 5^th Flr, Delta Blk,Embassy Tech Sq, Kadubeesanahalli Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Rd, Bangalore Bangalore KA India-560103 IN.

2.     Xioami Technology India Pvt. Ltd., through its Manager/Authorized Representative, c/o IKeva:8^th Floor, Umiya Business Bay Tower-I, Cessna Business Park, Kadubeesanahalli, Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bangalore (Karnataka), India-560103.

3.     M/s Rocket Commerce LLP through its Manager/Authorized Representative, Office: Plot No.183-197, 4^th Floor, Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bommasandra Ind. Area, Bomasandra, Bangalore-562106.

4.     Chandigarh MI Exclusive Service Center through its Manager/Authorized Representative, Shop No. SCO 2471-72, First Floor, 22-C, Chandigarh 160022.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

Argued by:

Complainant in person.

                None for the OP No.1

OPs 2 to 4 exparte.

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the complainant purchased a Redmi Note 3 Dark Grey mobile phone from  OP1’s website for Rs.9999/-, having one year warranty for handset hardware and six months for battery.  After few months i.e. on 20.09.2016, inbuild microphone of the mobile phone started giving problems and as such the same was landed with OP No.4  vide job sheet (Annexure C-2) but no expected return date was mentioned upon the said invoice.  It has further been averred that almost one month has passed from the date of its delivery to OP No.4 and whenever she visited OP No.4, she was asked to come on the next week as the requisite spare part did not receive from the Company.  It has further been averred that she even called the service hotline number but to no effect. Finally, she got served a legal notice dated 14.10.2016 upon the OPs demanding the replacement of the mobile phone but all in vain.  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 their joint written statement, OPs No.1 and 2 while admitting the factual matrix of the case have pleaded that the complainant approached the service center i.e. OP No.4 on 22.09.2016 with the issue related to in build microphone and the same was duly repaired by the technicians and the complainant was requested to collect the product but he refused to collect the same and filed the instant complaint.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant is not entitled to any other remedy which is not stated in the warranty terms.  It has been denied that the mobile phone in question is suffering from any manufacturing defective. 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.         Despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 have failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.12.2016.
4.         On 27.02.2017 none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 when the case was fixed for arguments.  Therefore, we proceeded to dispose the complaint under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in the absence of OP No.1. We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         The defence of OPs No.1 and 2 is that the mobile handset in question stands repaired under the warranty terms and conditions and the complainant was informed by the Service Center to collect the same but she has failed to collect the same.  However, we express our regret to accept this submission of OPs No.1 and 2 because in case, the complainant did not come to collect the mobile handset on the telephonically calls then the Service Center could have easily sent a letter at her available address through registered/speed post informing her that the mobile handset stands rectified and to collect the same on any working day but neither any such letter has ever been written to her nor the same was produced on record. 
6.         On the other hand, the complainant has placed on record a copy of the legal notice dated 14.10.2016 alongwith the postal receipts served upon the OPs through registered post requiring them to replace the mobile phone in question within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice. However, the OPs despite receipt of the said legal notice did not bother to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant what to talk of reply to the said notice. Whereas as per Clause 11 of the terms and conditions, the product was required to be repaired within two working days from the date of receipt of the faulty product.  When the complainant did not get any positive response from the OPs, she was left with no other alternative just to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum to get redress her genuine grievance and as such the OPs have committed deficiency in service by not rendering the promised services to the complainant within the warranty period.
7.         The complainant has sought replacement of the mobile handset in question.  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 especially when the mobile handset in question stands repaired by the OPs. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that ends of justice would be met if a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,500/- is awarded to the complainant.
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed with a direction to the OPs to handover the repaired mobile handset in question in fully working condition to the complainant alongwith a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,500/-.
9.         This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay the awarded amount to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.
10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.