Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/570/2016

Gopal Krishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

20 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	570 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	8.8.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	20.12.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Gopal Krishan son of Sh. Shyam Lal resident of H. No.2015, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1.  Xiomi Technology India Pvt. LTd. (Xiomi India) by rising stars mobile India Pvt. Ltd. 380-Belerica Road, Siri City, Siddam Agra-Haram Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor, District Andhra Pradesh 517541 through its proprietor/Managing Director/Manager.

2.  Xiomi India c/o Lkeva Business Centre 8^th floor, Umiya Business Bay Tower 1, Cessna Business Park, Kadubeesanahalli, Marathahalli-Sarjapur outer Ring Road, Bangalore-560103 through its proprietor/Managing Director/ Manager.

3.  Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. Anjaneya Infrastructure Project No.38&39, Soukya Road, Kacherakanahalli-Hoskote Taluka, Bangalore Rural District Bangalore 560067, Karnatka through its proprietor/Managing Director/Manager.

4.  Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., S-405, L Ground floor, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048 Delhi through its proprietor/Managing Director/ Manager.

5.  Xiaomi Exclusive- Chandigarh, Shop NO. SCO-2471-72, 1^st floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its proprietor/Managing Director/Manager.

6.  Amazon India (Registered office) , Brigade Gateway 8^th floor 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W) Bangalore 560055, Karanatka, India through its proprietor/Managing Director/Manager

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     complainant in person.

 

For OP No.1&2           :     Sh. Vipul Sharma, Adv.

 

For OP No.3&4           :     Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv.

 

For OP No.5             :     Sh. N.P. Sharma, Adv.

 

For OP No.6             :     Sh. Varinder Arora, Adv.       

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

     Succinctly stated, the complainant purchased a mobile set Xiaomi Redmi Note.3 (Gold, 16GB) X000H9GQZP from OP No.6 by making online payment of Rs.9,998/- (bill dated 11.5.2016 Annexure C-1). Soon after purchasing the handset, the complainant started facing problems while operating the handset viz heating up of handset from backside, hang on and automatic switch off etc. The problems further aggravated and the complainant could not use the handset and, resultantly the complainant deposited the handset with OP No.5 the local service of Xiaomi at Chandigarh on 4.7.2016. The expected date to return the handset was mentioned on the jobsheet as 19.7.2016. The complainant was provided no standby handset by the service centre despite request.  When the complainant did not get any update about the handset lying with OP No.5, he on 24.7.2016 contacted OP No.6 online who told the complainant to get DOA letter (dead on arrival) but the customer care executive of Xiomi flatly refused the complainant to provide DOA letter nor any satisfactory feedback was given about delivery status of the handset. It is alleged that the unethical behavior of the customer care centre as well as malpractice of harassing the customer by not providing after sale services and depriving the customer from the handset is highly condemnable, which caused irreparable loss to the complainant in term of money as well as mental harassment. Aggrieved with the conduct of the OPs the complainant served a legal notice dated 25.7.2016 upon OPs but in vain. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this complaint has been filed with prayer for refund of amount of Rs.9,998/- with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- etc.

 

2.     The Opposite Party No.1&2 in their joint reply stated that the service centre duly received the complainant’s  product on 4.7.2016 and examined it for defects and repaired the product as necessary, in accordance with the warranty terms and conditions as applicable under which the product was sold. When the product was repaired  the complainant was informed to collect delivery of the product, however, he refused to collect the repaired product from OP No.5, which has prevented OP No.2 to provide any remedy to the complainant.  It is further averred that the complainant has not produced on record any document to prove manufacturing defect in the product. All other allegations have been denied being wrong.

 

3. OPs No.3&4 in their joint reply stated that they are carrying on business of sale of goods as a retailer and the Xiomi Note 3 mobile sold by them carries Manufacturer’s warranty. As a reseller, involvement of the answering Opposite Parties in the entire transaction is limited to selling the product.  The liability to provide after sale services do not lay upon the answering OPs as they are neither manufacturer of the product nor the authorized service centre who has responsibility to provide after sale service to the consumers under manufacturer’s warranty clause.  All other allegations have been denied being wrong.
4.     OP No.5 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that  the complaint against it is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the OP No.5 being the service centre of the manufacturer OP No.1&2 is merely liable in the event of there being any deficiency in the service qua service/repairs rendered. The answering OP is not liable in any manner for any refund of the price/replacement of the handset or payment of any damage to the complainant. It is asserted that the mobile of the complainant was duly repaired but the complainant himself refused to collect the same. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.5. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
5.     OP No.6 in its reply stated that the it neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers can list their product for sale. The sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products that are listed on the website by various third party sellers, nor does the answering OP intervene or influence any customers in any manner.  It has been admitted that the answering OP advised the complainant to get issued DOA for the product which would in turn enable the return of the product. It is further asserted that there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP and requested that the complaint be dismissed against it.  
6.     The Complainant also filed rejoinders to the respective replies of the OPs thereby reiterating the averments as made in the complaint and controverting the contentions of the Opposite Parties.
7.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
8.     We have heard the  complainant in person, ld. Counsel for Opposite Parties and have also perused the record.
9.     The complainant has purchased the mobile handset in question online from OP No.6. The contention raised by OP No.6 regarding their immunity from any liability on  purchase of any product from their website cannot be accepted.  The OP No.6 is also the necessary party to this sale transaction, as such, it cannot escape from its liability, if any deficiency in service or indulgence in unfair trade practice is faced by any customer while purchasing the product from OP No.6.
10.     The complainant has booked the mobile handset, and made the payment and subsequently received the same at Chandigarh and, as such, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint.
11.     The complainant purchased the mobile handset on 11.5.2016 and soon after receipt of the same, he has faced numerous problems due to defect in the mobile handset in question.  He has also approached the OPs for redressal of his complaint and contacted the service centre at Chandigarh i.e. OP No.5 on 4.7.2016.  OP No.5 has received the said handset on 4.7.2016 for repair and has not returned the same to the complainant so far.
12.     Sh. Prabhakar Tewari, Deputy Manager (Legal), HCL Services Ltd.  in his duly sworn affidavit filed on behalf of OP No.5 in para No.4 has stated  as under:-

“ Upon inspection found on 4.7.2016 that there was a motherboard issue with the mobile handset which required replacement of the said part only, thereinafter a requisition was sent to OP No.1&2 for providing the part in question; which were finally received from OP No.1&2 only on 23.8.2016, and thereafter within a period of 01 day the mobile was repaired and the complainant was intimated to collect the same from the premises of the OP No.2 on/around 24.8.2016.”

 

 

13.     Obviously the OPs have received the telephone on 4.7.2016 and repaired it on 24.8.2016. The inordinate delay on the part of the OPs in repairing of the telephone tantamounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant has been deprived of service of his mobile handset for which he has already paid. The OPs cannot be permitted to hold the complainant at ransom by their callous attitude in attending the problem of consumer. It is further found that the motherboard, which is the back-bone of the mobile handset in question has been replaced by the OPs after finding it defective. Under these circumstances, it proves beyond doubt that the mobile handset, which the complainant had purchased, was having manufacturing defect on the date of its purchase.  

 

14.     Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the complaint is hereby allowed against the OPs. The OPs are jointly and severally directed as under:-     

   

a]  To refund Rs.9,998/- being the cost of the mobile handset;

 

 

b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

 

C]  To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the above awarded amounts at (a) from the date of purchase of the handset in question till realization and at (b) from the date of this order till it is paid, besides litigation expenses. 

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

20.12.2016

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER