Haryana

Ambala

CC/229/2019

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

22 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA

 

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        : 229of 2019

                                                          Date of Institution         : 26.07.2019

                                                          Date of decision    : 22.04.2021

 

 

Vijay Kumar son of Pritam Chand, resident of house No.10/4, Rangiya Mandi, Ambala Cantt.District Ambala (Haryana).

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.  Xiomi Technology India Private Limited, SYN No.94/ Koraluru, village  Kassba Hoblihoskote Talik, Bangalore (Karnataka)560067 (Sailing Unit) (Through its MD).

 

2.  ODIGI Services Limited, 16/2 Ab Main Prem Nagar Road, Adjacent to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ambala City (Haryana) 134003, (Authorized Service Centre) (Through its Service Manager)

 

3.  Xiomi Technology India Private Ltd., 4^th Floor, Ozone Manay Tech Park Hongasandra, Bangalore, Karnataka560068 (Main complaint Centre) (through its Complaint Manager).

4.  Rising Stars Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. 80, Belerice Road, Sri City Chittoor, District Andhra Pradesh-517541 (Manufactured of Mobile Redmi Note 7) (Through its M.D.)

 

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Ms.Neena Sandhu,  President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                  

                            

Present:       Shri Arun K Nagra, Advocate , counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1               and 3.

OPs No. 2 and 4 already ex parte v.o.d. 05.09.2019.

 

 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 replace the mobile phone with new one upgraded model  or to pay Rs.13,999/- i.e. cost of the mobile set to the complainant alongwith the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till it realization .
2. To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for the mental  agony and physical harassment suffered by  him.
3. To pay Rs.3000/- as litigations charges. 

 

AND

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

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a mobile phone of make Redmi Note 7 Pro 4 GB RAM 64 GB Space Black IMEI No.860848043683052 online from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.5308201 dated 28.03.2019 for a sum of Rs.13,999/-. On 23^rd of April, 2019, the mobile in question started giving problem like software hang and the problem of mother board, for which on 24.04.2019, complainant went to OP no.2 i.e. Authorized Service Centre for rectification of the problem occurred in the mobile in question. After thorough checking OP No.2 rectified the defect and handed over the mobile in question to the complainant. On 26.04.2019, the mobile in question again started giving the same problem. Complainant again visited the OP No.2, where he received the job sheet from OP No.2 and advised the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect and same could not be repaired. Complainant again approached the OP No.2, but they had not attended the complainant, rather misbehaved with him and flatly refused to do anything in the matter. Due to manufacturing defect in the mobile in question and attitude of OPs, complainant suffered mental and physical harassment along with monetary loss. By not rectifying the manufacturing defect of the mobile in question, OPs have committed deficiency in service and also indulged into unfair trade practice.Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs no.1 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability and misleading this Commission. On merits, it is stated that neither the complainant has approached the OPs No.1 and 3 on 24.04.2019, nor any evidence has been produced by the complainant to show that he approached the OPs No.1 and 3 on 24.04.2019 for removal of defects from the mobile in question. Moreover, complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the mobile in question is having a manufacturing defect. Present complaint is nothing, but a tactics to get refund or other monetary benefits. Complainant has not provided any fair opportunity to OPs No.1 and 3 to examine any further defects in the product by submitting the product for repair and instead directly chose to file the present complaint. Mobile in question was duly repaired by the OPs no.1 and 3 and the complainant raised no objection at the time of delivery of the mobile in question. It is further stated that, if the complainant had submitted the product to the any of the authorized service centre of Ops No.1 and 3 for any further defects persisting in the product, the Ops No.1 and 3 would have repaired all the defects or replaced the defective parts. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 3and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint filed against them.

          Upon notice, OPs No.2 and 4 failed to turn up and were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 05.09.2019.

3.       To prove the version of the complainant, Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, Counsel for OPs No.1 and 3 tendered affidavit of Shri Sameer BS Rao, son of ShriSundarRao, aged about 41 years, Authorized Representative of Xiomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Building Orchid Embassy Tech Village, Devarabisanahalli, Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560103 as Annexure OP1/Aalong with documents Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/3 and closed their evidence.

4.       We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the mobile in question started giving problem since the date of its purchase and despite approaching before OP No.2 i.e. service centre, OPs failed to rectify the defect and misbehaved with the complainant. By not rectifying the manufacturing defect, Ops have committed deficiency in service.

 

          On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the OPs No.1 and 3 argued that the onus to prove the manufacturing defect lies on the part of the complainant, but in the present complaint, complainant failed to establish his case as he as not placed on record any document to prove that he visited any service center  of the OPs No.1 and 3 on 24.04.2019 for removal of the defects in his mobile phone as alleged. Nor the complainant has placed on record any expert report to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile in question. Moreover, complainant has not placed on record any document which shows that complainant approached the OPs No.1 and 3 for removal of defects. Complainant has alleged in para no.3 of the complaint that he visited before OP No.2 on 26.04.2019, for removal of defects for which job sheet was issued but the representative of OP No.2 advised to the complainant that there is an manufacturer defect in the mobile in question and the same could not be repaired. Admittedly, the OP No.1 and 3 clearly mentioned in their written version that the job sheet No.WXIN1940260003104 dated 26.4.2019 (Annexure C-2) was generated and provided to the complainant. It has also been mentioned that service center of OP No.1 and 3 duly examined the device and found no defect in the product and delivered the product in proper condition.  After rectification of defect mobile in question was handed over to it which clearly shows that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant just to harass the OPs no.1 and 3 and to extract money from them and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

6.       Annexure C-1 is the invoice, which shows that complainant purchased the mobile in question on dated 28.3.2019 for a sum of Rs.13,999/-. Annexure C-2 is the job sheet, which shows that complainant approached OP No.2 on 26.04.2019 for removal of defect i.e. ‘contacts not shown properly’ as per the description of the complainant. Complainant in his complainant has clearly stated that on visit before OP No.2 on 26.04.2019 for removal of defect, job sheet was issued and after removal of defects mobile was handed over to him. In para No.3 of the complaint, complainant has alleged that mobile in question started giving problem on 24.04.2019 like software hanging and mother board related issues, but no document has been placed on record by the complainant to prove his case that he visited the OP No.2 on 24.04.2019 for these issues. Moreover, complainant has placed on record job sheet dated 26.04.2019, whereby complainant raised issue of ‘contact not showing’ and for which OP No.2 i.e. service centre mentioned the repair method i.e. ‘601 Normal SW Flashing’, which shows that OP No.2 had not refused to repair the mobile in question. Complainant is the best person of his case and firstly the onus to prove the case lies on the part of the complainant, but in the present case, neither any document with regard to manufacturing defect nor any expert report has been filed by the complainant to prove that the mobile in question is having a manufacturing defect. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, in the absence of any cogent any convincing evidence, complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 

 

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint filed against OPs, being devoid of merits. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be supply to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 22.04.2021

 

 

 

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

              Member                     Member                President