Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/602/2016

Atul Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gaurav Bhardwaj,Adv Paras Money Goyal Adv.

01 Mar 2017

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	602 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	16.08.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	01.03.2017

 

 

 

Atul Arora s/o Late Sh.S.P.Arora, R/o H.No.3285, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Indiqube, Ist Floor, Marathahalli ORR, Kadubesanahalli, Bangalore-560103, India, through its Managing Director

2]  TVS Electronics Ltd., C/o DHL, 4^th Floor, Plot No.193-197 and 254-258, 137 & 248-249, Jigani Link Road, Bommasandra, Industrial Area, Bangalore 562106 through its Managing Director.

3]  Authorised Exclusive Service Centre of MI, HCL Services Ltd., SCO No.2471-72,  Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Manager. 

….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER 

        

 

Argued by:-

Sh.P.M.Goyal, Counsel for complainant.

None for OP -1

OP -2 exparte

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-3.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant, a Group-A Officer, purchased Xiaomi MI Max mobile handset for Rs.14,999/- by placing an Online order with OP No.1 on 3.8.2016 and the same was delivered to the complainant on 5.8.2016   (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that after starting the handset, the complainant noticed WiFi problem in it and then approached the authorised Service Centre/OP No.3 on 8.8.2016.  The OP No.3 reported the fault description as Wi-Fi Connection Fault and tried to rectify it, but failed and as such returned the handset to the complainant with advise to contact Customer Care Centre with an assurance that the handset will be replaced.  It is averred that the complainant contacted the Customer Care Centre of the Opposite Parties, whereupon the representative of the OPs visited the complainant, but refused to replace the handset.  It is submitted that the complainant with regard to his grievance also wrote a mail on 8.8.2016 to the Opposite Parties, but there was no positive response (Ann.C-3).  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2]       The OP No.1 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that it had offered to settle the matter with the complainant by providing replacement of the alleged product in dispute with a new device of the same model as a professional and goodwill gesture, but the complainant at all the times refused to settle it. Pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

         OP No.2 did not turn up despite service of notice sent through regd. post, hence it was proceeded exparte.

 

         OP No.3 also filed reply sating that the mobile handset has already been returned to the complainant on the same very day when it was received i.e. on 8.8.2016 and he was asked to lodge a DoA (Dead on Arrival) complaint for replacement with the Manufacturer being the OP No.1, which was done by him on the same day, hence no cause of action qua OP No.3 survives with regard to the defect in the mobile handset of the complainant.  It is also stated that the OP No.3 being the Service Centre cannot be held liable in case of any manufacturing defect in the mobile and the sole responsibility thereof rests with Opposite Party No.1 being the manufacturer as well as OP No.2 being the seller, who received the entire consideration of sale. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of OPs No.1 & 3.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       It is not disputed that the mobile handset Xiaomi MI Max, purchased by the complainant online for Rs.14,999/- from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 3.8.2016, delivered to him on 5.8.2016 (Ann.C-1), was suffering from an inherent defect in regard to the WiFi connection.  Further, it is proved that the said defect was duly & timely apprised to the Opposite Parties, who despite admitting the defect, failed to replace the handset in question.  Although the OP No.1 claimed that it offered to settle the matter with the complainant by providing replacement of the handset in dispute with a new device/handset of the same make & model, as a professional and goodwill gesture, but failed to corroborate such assertion by way of any cogent evidence on record in this regard.  

 

7]       The OP No.1 claimed that even during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant was offered for the replacement, which the complainant refused to accept and insisted only for the refund of his amount, which as per warranty condition could not be honoured. 

 

8]       It is evident on record that vide e-mail dated 8.8.2016 (Ann.C-3 Page 19), the OPs had sought 10 days’ time to resolve the matter, but the complainant filed the present complaint on 16.8.2016.

 

9]       From the above facts & circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as they were ready to redress the grievance of the complainant and sought some time, but the complainant himself did not wait for the given time.  However, in the interest of justice, we dispose of this complaint with directions to the Opposite Parties to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make & configuration, or with another mobile handset of higher specification, by charging the difference of amount, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

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

Announced

1^st March, 2017                             Sd/-                                           

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER