Haryana

Ambala

CC/115/2020

Deepak Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.         : 115 of 2020.

                                                          Date of Institution           :  02.06.2020.

                                                          Date of decision     :  02.05.2022

 

Deepak Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Lal, r/o #1896, Housing Board Colony, Near Mahadev (Shiv) Mandir, Sector-09, Ambala City.

                                                                               ……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

1.       Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Khasra No.14/24/212, 16/3/2, 4/2,      5/2/1, 6/2, 7 Modi Warehouse Darbari Pur Road, Opposite HDFC Bank,    Hasanpur, Gurgaon. Through its Proprietor/Partner.

2.       MI Authorized Service Center, Qdigi Services Limited, 16/2Ab, Main        Prem Nagar Road, Adjacent to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Opposite        Reliance Digital, Ambala City. Through its Manager.

3.       Rising Stars Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., 380, Belerica Road, Sri City, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh-517541. Through its Managing      Director/Authorized Signatory.

                                                                              ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Complainant in person.

Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

OPs No.2&3 already exparte.

 

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund the cost of mobile in question alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum from date of purchase.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for, mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/-, as cost of litigation.

Or

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

2.            Brief facts of the case are that OP No.1 is the dealer and OP No.2 is the authorized service centre for repair of MI (Xiaomi) Mobiles and OP No. 3 is the manufacturer of MI Mobiles. Complainant after hearing the good views and thoughts about the MI (Xiaomi) Mobiles that it is of good quality and is free from all sorts of complaint had purchased an MI (Xiaomi) Mobile, Model Redmi Note 7 Pro, Dual SIM, vide Invoice No.5814062 on 24.04.2019 and bearing IMEI 1 No.860848047859112, IMEI 2 No.860848047859120 from OP No.1 of Rs.16,999/- through online and warranty of which is one year against the manufacturing defects. Complainant had faced many problems with handset after some time from the date of its purchase as the mobile handset is not running properly and having some manufacturing defects i.e. a big network problem due to which tower of network goes and a cross(x) sign shown in the symbol of tray shows on the place of tower by which mobile does not work at all, touching problem (Hard Touch) and having more hanging problem during the operation of mobile in spite of low data in the phone due to manufacturing defects then, the complainant immediately approached the OP No.2 in the month of November, 2019 who is authorized service centre of MI Mobiles. OP No.2 takes the mobile in question in their possession for repair and they changed the network cable of said mobile and updated the same and returned the same to the complainant with the assurance that the said problem in the mobile are properly removed and would not arise again in future and issued a service record dated 30.11.2019 to the complainant and a copy of service order dated 30.11.2019 of OP No.2. Thereafter, complainant used the said mobile about three months but the mobile gave more problems than earlier inspite of changing of network cable and updating the same i.e. sometime automatic operate, heating during charging and operation of mobile, very low battery backup, many times tell number busy to others and call not connected in the said mobile. Then complainant again approached to OP No.2 and repaired the same and issued a service record dated 18.03.2020 and copy of order dated 18.03.2020. Complainant took the said mobile from OP No.2 and they assured the him that now there is no need to come again because all the problems in the said mobile is properly rectified and it would not arise again in future and complainant used the mobile in question only about for two hours and he was great surprised to see that the tower of network goes again and cross (x) sign shows in the symbol of tray shows on the place of tower as earlier and the problem remains intact due to which complainant got harassed on account of the said problem, in addition with the initial problem and to rectify the abovesaid problems, he again visited the OP No.2 but it told him that the problem in the mobile cannot be rectified at all as the same has manufacturing defects and is beyond repair and told that he shall go to the company to rectify the said problem to change the same with a new one.  Thus, OPs have not only committed deficiency in service but are also indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

3.                 Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability etc. On merits, it is stated that OP No.1 is Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act 2013 and was incorporated in India on October 7, 2014,having its principal place of business a Building Orchid, Block-E, Embassy Tech Village Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560103. OP No.1 is engaged in the marketing, sale and service inter alia of mobile phones in India under the brands “Mi” and “Xiaomi” and also manufactured of the mobile in question. Complainant has purchased a handset sold under MI Brand namely Redmi Note 7 for Rs. 16,999/- bearing IMEI No. 860848047859112 on April 24, 2019. All MI and Xiaomi brand mobile phones sold within India under a standard set of warranty terms and conditions. On November 20,2019, complainant approached the authorized service centre of OP No.1. Complainant informed the technician of 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 at free of cost by the technicians of OP No.1, as per the standard applicable warranty conditions. The handset was duly returned to complainant in proper working condition. Complainant again approached the authorized service centre of OP No.1 on March 18, 2020. Complainant informed the technician of OP No.1 that the complainant was facing issue related to 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 defect related to the product was duly repaired at free of cost by the technician of OP No.1, as per the standard applicable warranty conditions. The handset was returned to complainant in proper working condition. However, complainant has not proved in any way or demonstrated that the product is presently suffering from a defect and such defect is a manufacturing defect and repaired by OP No.1. Thus, there is no negligence, deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1, thus the complaint filed by the complainant, deserves dismissal with costs.

4.                Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 did not appear before this Commission and they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 01.03.2021.

5.                 Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Shri Sameer BS Rao, Authorized Representative of Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Building Orchid, Block E, Embassy Tech Village, Devarabisanahalli, Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560103 and affidavit of Shri Paramveer Singh, son of Shri Satish Kumar, presently employed as Engineer at Qdigi Services Limited as Annexure OP1/A and OP1/B respectively alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

6.                 We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.1 and have also gone through the record very carefully.

7.                 Complainant has submitted that the mobile in question got defective, within warranty period, after its purchase and he approached the OP No.2 repeatedly for rectification of its defects, but OP No.2 failed to rectify the defects occurred in it, which proves that mobile in question is having inherent defect in it. He further prayed that the cost of the mobile in question may be ordered to be refunded to him.

8.                On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has retaliated the version as mentioned in the written version. The counsel for the OP No.1 argued that complainant only made the complaint to the service centre after the purchase of mobile in question. After examining and reviewing the product at the service centre, the defects related to the product was duly repaired at free of costs, by the technicians of OP No.1, as per the standard applicable warranty conditions. The handset was duly returned to complainant in proper working condition, but on 18.03.2020, again approached the authorized service centre of OP No.1.

9.                Admittedly, Annexure C-5 is tax invoice dated 24.04.2018, vide which the complainant online purchased the Redmi Note 7 Pro 8GB Ram 128 GB Naptune Blue from the OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.3. The said mobile set became defective and started giving various problems. The complainant approached the Op No.2 several times to resolve the defects of mobile in question and the said fact is also clear from the service order dated 18.11.2022 (Annexure C-1 and C-2) and service order dated 18.03.2020 (Annexure C-3 and C-4). In all these service orders, the Op No.2 admitted that the mobile in question is within warranty and also having problems of “System Lag” and “System Freezing Fault”, but the Op No.2 did not resolve these defects in the mobile in question. Complainant has averred that since the mobile in question got defective from the very beginning from the date of its purchase and the complainant had lost his faith in the manufacturer, therefore OPs may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.16,999/- i.e. price/cost of the defective mobile. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retails Ltd. 2014 (1) CLT, wherein it was held that in the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning, it is always better to order for refund of the amount, because replacement of the product will never satisfy the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product. If the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment, because he had to fight another bond of litigation, which will be highly torturous. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retails Ltd. (supra), we hold that the OP No.1 being manufacturer is liable to refund the amount of Rs.16,999/- i.e. the cost of the mobile in question, to the complainant. OP No.1 is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant along with litigation expenses. Since there is no specific allegation against the OPs No.2 and 3 and even it has no role to play in the dispute, therefore, complaint against OPs No.2 and 3 are also liable to be dismissed.

10.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the present complaint against the OPs No.2 and 3 and allow the same against the OP No.1 and direct it in the following manner:-

                   (i)      To refund cost of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.16,999/-                                       with the condition that the complainant shall return the                                mobile in question to the OP No.1.

                   (ii)     To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and                      physical harassment caused to the complainant

                   (iii)    To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses. 

 

                   The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 02.05.2022.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)                   (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                Member                President

 

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

Ops No. 2&3 already exparte.

 

Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been dismissed against OPs No.2 and 3 and same has been allowed against OP No.1. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.

Announced on: 02.05.2022.

 

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                      Member                          President