Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/952/2016

Charanpal Singh Bagri Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

01 May 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/952/2016
Date of Institution	:	17/10/2016
Date of Decision	:	01/05/2018

 

Charanpal Singh Bagri, Advocate S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh, resident of House No. 2521, Sector 125, Sunny Enclave, Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. 

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, through its Sales Manager, 8^th Floor, Tower-I, Umiya Business Bay Marathahalli- Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

 

[2]     HCL Limited, through its Service Manager, SCO 2471-72, 1^st Floor, Sector 22, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
		Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.
		Sh.Jasdev S. Thind, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

1.         Shri Charanpal Singh Bagri, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited and Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he had purchased one Xiaomi Redmi 2 mobile handset on 25.11.2015 vide retail invoice Annexure C-1. On 30.07.2016, the said mobile phone stopped working and its display turned black. Accordingly, on 10.08.2016, the aid mobile handset was deposited with the Opposite Party No.2 vide Service Order Sheet Annexure C-2. After preliminary investigation, Opposite Party No.2 informed the Complainant that the motherboard of the mobile handset in question got damaged, due to some technical defect, which was to be replaced with a new one and for which an order was required to be placed and the said process would take 15-20 days. The Complainant requested the Opposite Party No.2 to provide an alternative handset vide Annexure C-3, but to no avail. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the Service Centre umpteen number of times, but he was put off on one pretext or the other. Eventually, a detailed representation was sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1, highlighting his grievance, but when nothing positive could come out, he had to purchase a new mobile handset for Rs.11,999/- vide retail invoice dated 25.09.2016 (Annexure C-5). With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.2 filed reply, inter alia, pleading that it was disclosed to the Complainant that the reported fault/defect in the display of the mobile handset in question was due to damaged motherboard which do not come under warranty terms of the manufacturer company as these are liquid damages. The Complainant was aware of the charges for repair of the said handset and was intimated about the same orally as also through a service record/inspection sheet dated 10.08.2016. The said defect was the outcome of Complainant’s own negligence and casual use. The Complainant was contacted several times to get the said handset repaired or take back his handset, but the Complainant never responded. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 (Opposite Party No.1 being ex-parte).
6.         The case of the Complainant is that he handed over the handset in question to Opposite Party No.2 for necessary repairs on 10.08.2016 (Annexure C-2), but till date neither the handset has been repaired nor it has been given back to him.
7.         By means of present Complaint, the Complainant prayed for interim relief of making arrangements of alternate mobile handset for his personal use. Vide order dated 03.04.2017, it has been ordered that Opposite Party No.2 will repair the mobile handset of the Complainant within a period of fortnight, without any cost, and if the case is decided against the Complainant, he shall foot the bill of the repairs, otherwise Opposite Party No.1 shall reimburse the repair amount to Opposite Party No.2.
8.         Opposite Party No.2 filed reply to the present Complaint on 03.04.2017, which was not supported by the evidence, as per the previous order. Thereafter, various adjournments were sought by Opposite Party No.2 for filing the evidence and ultimately, the same was filed on 04.10.2017 i.e. after a delay of approximately 06 months. Importantly, costs of Rs.1800/- were imposed upon Opposite Party No.2 for seeking adjournments on different grounds.
9.         Perusal of the evidence filed by Opposite Party No.2 shows that the handset in question was irrepairable, being out of warranty, as there was fault in the motherboard due to some liquid damage/ water logging. It also has been contended in the affidavit that cost for carrying out the repairs was mentioned to the Complainant orally as Rs.5500/-, to which the Complainant denied.
10.         On minute scrutiny of the affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.2 and the written arguments filed by it, after oral arguments, we find great discrepancies therein. As per the written arguments, Opposite Party No.2 has already returned the mobile handset in question to the Complainant as per the orders of this Forum dated 03.04.2017, but in contradiction there is nothing in the evidence filed by it, which was filed after 06 months of the order of the repairs. Even no statement has been suffered by Opposite Party No.2 that it has repaired the handset in question free of cost. Moreover, the manufacturer i.e. Opposite Party No.1 did not appear during the proceedings of the present case. So far as the question of water logging in the handset in question is concerned, we do not find any substance in the same, as there is no expert report by any qualified engineer to corroborate the same. Hence, the act of Opposite Party No.1 for non-appearance during the proceedings of the present case and Opposite Party No.2 for non-providing proper services to the Complainant, proves deficiency in service on their part, which has certainly caused unprecedented harassment to the Complainant.
11.         In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

 

[a]    To repair the handset of the Complainant, free of charge, and handover the same to him in perfect working order with extended warranty of one year from the date of such repair.

[b]    To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]    To pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

12.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from complying with the directions as contained in sub-para [a] and [c] above. 

 

13.         Apart from above, Opposite Party No.2 shall also pay the costs of Rs.1800/- to the Complainant, which were imposed upon it, during the proceedings of the Complaint, for taking various adjournments on different grounds.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
01/05/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”