Haryana

Karnal

CC/178/2017

Narinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Sonu Rana

16 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.178 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 24.05.2017

                                                         Date of decision:16.03.2018

 

Narinder Singh son of Shri Jarnail Singh resident of House no.996 Sector 9, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, 8^th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay Marathahalli-Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Banglore-560103 through its Manager/Auth Signatory.

2. WS Retail Services Pvt.Ltd. Ozone Manay Tech Park no.56/18, “B” Block, 9^th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Banglore-560068 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

3. Tara Tele & Mobile, Shop no.35, Mela Ram School Market, near Sachdeva Hospital, Karnal 13200 through its Manager/Auth. Signatory.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.    

 

Before   Shri Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms Veena Rani…..Member

              Shri Anil Sharma……Member

 

Present: Complainant in person alongwith Sh. Sonu Rana Adv.

               Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER:                    

       

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had online ordered through flipkart and purchased a mobile phone of Xiaomi Company, Model Mi Note 3 vide Order ID no.OD206160610799051000 and invoice no.bir_wfld20160600057143 dated 3.6.2016 for a sum of Rs.11999/- from OP no.2. In the month of January, 2017 a problem of automatic switch on/off and hanging up of mobile phone occurred in the said mobile phone. It is further alleged that in the month of March, 2017 a problem of excessive heating up also occurred in the mobile alongwith the problem of automatic switch on/off. Complainant approached the OP no.3 the authorized service centre of the company for repair of the mobile set. OP no.3 kept the mobile set. OPno.3 returned the mobile set and assured that the mobile phone is OK and now all the problems of the mobile has been  permanently removed. On the assurance of OP no.3 complainant received the mobile but when he operated the same, it created the same problems and was not working properly. Then on 23.5.2017 complainant again approached the OP no.3 for removal of the faults but OP no.3 did not remove the defect and said that the mobile set was not repairable because it was having some manufacturing defect. Then complainant requested the OPs for replacement of the defective mobile set with new one but the OPs did not pay any heed to his request. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement stating therein that complainant has purchased a phone MI Note 3 for Rs.11,999/- from OP no.2. It is further stated that on May 22, 2017 the complainant approached the OP no.3 with a complaint regarding the product. On examination by the service engineer it was ascertained that the product was having auto power off problem. The said problem was duly and properly repaired by the technician of OP no.3 without any charge. It is further stated that the complainant has not provided any evidence to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the product.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to concealments of true and material facts; cause of action and mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits it is submitted that OP no.2 has delivered the product in a sealed box to the complainant (as it was received from the manufacturer/distributor) within the time specified in the order. Hence there was no deficiency on the part of OP no.2. It is further submitted that the product of the complainant developed the alleged problem in the month of January, 2017 i.e. after usage of nearby six months. Even otherwise the complainant had used the product in issue for more than 8 months from the date of purchase without any problem and before allegedly taking it to the OP no.3 Authorized service centre. It is pertinent to mention here that it is well settled proposition of law that the liability for defects in product or its after sale service issues rests with manufacturer and its authorized service centre only. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Counsel of OP no.3 on 16.10.2017 made statement that the reply filed by OP no.1 may also be read as the reply of OP no.3.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 6.11.2017.

5.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sameer BS Rao Ex.OPW1/A, affidavit of Dr. Anil Gupta Ex.OP2/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 15.2.2018.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant had purchased a mobile set Xiaomi Company, Model Mi Note 3 vide Order ID no.OD206160610799051000 and invoice no.bir_wfld20160600057143 dated 3.6.2016 for a sum of Rs.11999/- from OP no.2. It is alleged by the complainant that after six months of its purchase the problems of automatic switch on/off, hanging and heating were occurred. The complainant approached the OPs to resolve these defects within warranty period, but the OPs did not resolve the same. The complainant has also filed his affidavit in support of his allegations. The copy of the job sheet Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 clearly shows that the mobile set was having problems during warranty period. So, we found force in the contention of complainant. Hence, the OPs are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

8.             During the argument, the complainant stated that he has purchased a new mobile set and in the interest of justice, the cost of mobile may please be got returned from the OPs.  In this regard, we can reply upon the authority decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana bearing first appeal no.460 of 2014 decided on 28.5.2014 titled as Deepjot Singh Vs. The Mobile Store wherein the Hon’ble State Commission has allowed 70% cost of the mobile set. The complainant in the present case has used the mobile for more than 6 months. So, keeping in view the above                           citation, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be met if the cost of mobile set be order to be refunded to the complainant after making 30% depreciation of the same.

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint partly and direct the OPs to pay Rs.8400/- i.e. 70% of Rs.11,999/- (cost of the mobile set) to the complainant, subject to submitting the old phone with its accessories to the service centre of the company. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:16.03.2018

                                                               

                                                                 President,

                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)                     (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                              Member