Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/124/2017

Harparteek Singh Sandhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Avin Kaur Sandhu Adv.

26 May 2017

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	124 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	3.2.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	26.5.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Harparteek Singh Sandhu s/o s. Avtar Singh Sandhu#627, Sector 11B, Chandigarh 160011.

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1.  Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. 8^th floor, Tower-I, Umiya Business Bay, Marathalli Sarjapur, outer Ring Road, Banglore, Karnatka, India 560103.

 

2.  Authorized exclusive service centre of MI, HCL Services Ltd. SCO No.2471-72, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

3.  Authorized Exclusive Service Centre of MI Phase 3 B2, 887, Mohali Stadium Rd., Phase 3B2, Sector 60, SahibzadaAjit Singh Nagar, Punjab.     

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Ms. Avin Kaur Sandhu, Adv.  

 

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

 

For OP No.2&3           :     Sh. Parshant Seth, Adv.

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

     The complainant on 25.11.2016 online purchased two smartphones i.e. Redmi note 3 16 GB and Mi Max 32GB for Rs.25,496/-. It is pleaded that on receiving the smartphones on 28.11.2016 the complainant made efforts to turn on the  handset Max Gold 32GB several times but in vain. The complainant contacted the Mi helpline 29.11.2016 who directed the complainant to its service centre at sector 22. Accordingly the complainant on 3.12.2016 approached the service centre wherein the complainant was told that as the technician is not available, therefore, he has to submit the handset and collect the same on 5.12.2016 but since the complainant was cautioned  by the hotline customer care executive on 29.11.2016 that the handset may not be left at service centre therefore, he refused to submit the same.  Thereafter the father in law of the complainant first visited sector 22 service centre and thereafter service centre at Mohali and requested for exchange. They somehow turn on the handset in question and stated that they cannot exchange the handset as it is in working condition and assured that if it continues to trouble then they will initiate the process of exchange. However, on 12.12.2016 the handset in question again became defective and stopped working. OP No.3 was again approached for exchange of the same. It is alleged the OPs despite numerous request, did not exchange the handset in question despite approaching within 10 days of exchange policy. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed he served a legal notice upon the OPs but in vain. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this complaint has been filed.

 

2           The Opposite Party No.1 in its reply stated that  the complainant approached OP No.1 on 29.11.2016 regarding problem in the handset in question and he was advised to approach the authorized service centre. The complainant on 12.12.2016  approached the service centre and was issued job sheet.  However the complainant refused to submit the product for repair and insisted for replacement. The service engineers of the OP No.3 duly informed the complainant that the product cannot be replaced since the replacement is only applicable within 10 days of purchase of the handset in question, which has already been lapsed.  It was informed to the complainant that the handset would be repaired as per standard warranty terms and conditions of the product but he collected the handset without repair.  It is stated that there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP and the complaint be dismissed against it.  

3       OP No. 2&3 in their joint reply stated that the complaint is not maintainable qua them as they have no role in replacement of the handset in question.  It is asserted that the complainant never approached OP No.2 and it only approached OP No.3 and  OP No.3 provided proper service to the complainant.  The handset was tested and the defect was conveyed to the complainant with instruction to submit the handset with OP No.3 as the motherboard in the said handset needs to be replaced without cost. But the complainant insisted for replacement of the handset, which was not possible as the complainant approached after expiry of exchange policy. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5           We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the evidence on record.

6           The complainant had purchased mobile phone Mi Max 32 GB on 25.11.2016 from OP No.1. It was delivered to him on 28.11.2016. The phone did not work properly and as such, as admitted by  OP No.1 in its reply, the complainant approached on 29.11.2016 to the customer care of OP No.1 intimating the problems with the working of the handset in question.

7           The OP No.1 instead of accepting the request of the complainant for change of mobile handset instructed him to  contact their service centre at Chandigarh. The complainant followed their instructions and contacted the authorized service centre of OP No.1 and apprised them about problems regarding auto power on and off in the handset in question and asked for change of his mobile phone.  The service centre OP No.2 and OP No.3 in their written statement admitted the facts  and stated that on receipt of complaint from complainant  had prepared the job sheet. The mobile handset was tested and the complainant was apprised the defect regarding required change of mother board in the same.  The OPs have stated that replacement request is applicable only if the same is made within 10 days of receipt of the delivery of the order and as such they declined to accept the request of the complainant for change of defective mobile handset or refund of money. 

8           The contention raised by the OPs  are absolutely absurd. The complainant had just after receipt of handset on 28.11.2016 intimated the OP No.1 on 29.11.2016  regarding the defect in the handset in question.  The OP No.1 instead of redressing the grievance of the complainant by exchange of mobile in question at its own level, directed him to contact their service centre at Chandigarh,  despite clear option of exchange of mobile handset within 10 days of receipt of delivery.

9           The facts and circumstances in the present case emphatically substantiate unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

10         The Govt. of India under Laissez Faire policy has permitted free trade. The mobile handset purchased by the complainant is made of China and under Laissez Faire policy is available in Indian market for sale in public. In our opinion any alien country cannot be allowed to use India as a dumping ground for their defective products coming from open global market/alien countries.

11         Keeping in view the above facts into consideration, the complaint is hereby  allowed with following directions to the OPs jointly and severally.

a)   To refund Rs.14,999/- to the complainant    being the price of the defective handset    Mi Max Gold 32GB. 

 

b)   To pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of    litigation.

 

 

c)   The complainant is also directed to    return back the handset in question as and when the OPs comply with the order as   above.

 

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days of its receipt.

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

Announced

26.5.2017

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER