Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/43/2018

Krishan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

12 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/43/2018
Date of Institution	:	19/01/2018
Date of Decision	:	12/09/2018

 

Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Subhash Chand, Resident of VPO Balival, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh – 177220.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Limited, 8^th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay Marathahalli, Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India-560103, through its Managing Director/Director.

2.     HCL Service Centre (MI), SCO 2471-72, 1^st Floor, Sector 22, Chandigarh – 160022, Near Piccadilly Chowk, through its Proprietor.

……Opposite Parties

 

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

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Atul Goyal, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Sh. Jasdev Singh Thind, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that the Complainant purchased one Redmi Note on 03.12.2014 vide Annexure-A from Flipkart. In the month of June, 2017, the Complainant faced some software relating problem in the said handset and hence gave the same to Opposite Party No.2 vide Job-Sheet Annexure-B. Since the device was out of warranty, Opposite Party No.2 offered to repair the handset on payment basis ranging between Rs.180/- to Rs.200/-, to which the Complainant agreed. However, on 22.06.2017, when the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 he was asked to deposit Rs.7151/- as the motherboard was damaged. It has been alleged that the motherboard was damaged by the Service Centre as at the time of depositing the device for repairs, Opposite Party No.2 had confirmed that there was only App fault. Complainant took his device back and deposited Rs.120/- as inspection charges to Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, the Complainant lodged Complaint with Opposite Party No.1, upon which he was asked to submit the device with Opposite Party No.2, which the Complainant did on 24.06.2017 vide job-sheet Annexure-D. Ever since then, the device was lying with Opposite Party No.2 for want of repairs. 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.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 filed its reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that for the devices that are out of warranty and which are submitted for repair, customers are charged a token inspection charge and subsequently on identification of the problem, are charged for the additional repair and parts. In the present case, on examination of the device, it was found that the motherboard was damaged and the Complainant was duly informed that the cost of repair would be Rs.7151/-. The damage had occurred before the product was submitted to the Authorized Service Centre for repair and not by the Service Centre. The Complainant refused to get the motherboard repaired/ replaced and the handset was handed back to the Complainant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Opposite Party No.2 filed its separate written reply taking almost similar pleas as taken by Opposite Party No.1 in its written reply and also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         Admittedly, the Complainant purchased the subject mobile handset on 03.12.2014 and the warranty of the product expired on 02.12.2015. A copy of the invoice dated 03.12.2014 accounts for Annexure-C. It has come on record in the shape of job-sheet (Annexure-D) that the Complainant first approached the Service Centre on 21.06.2017 in connection with problems in the product, which was by then out of warranty period. Since the handset was out of warranty, the Complainant was charged inspection charges and upon examination the motherboard of the product was found damaged and the Complainant was duly informed that the cost of repair would be Rs.7151/- which the Complainant refused to pay and took the handset back without repair.  Further, Annexure-E which is a job-sheet dated 24.06.2017 shows that the Complainant again approached a different Service Centre on 24.06.2017 and on being provided an estimate of Rs.7151/- for repair, again refused for the same and the product was duly returned to him. Eventually, on 04.10.2017, vide job-sheet Annexure-F, produced on record by the Opposite Party No.1, on being paid the requisite charges by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties repaired the handset in question as per standard terms and warranty exclusions. The Complainant has alleged that damage to the motherboard of his handset occurred at the Service Centre during inspection. However, we are not impressed with the same, inasmuch as, there is nothing to record to substantiate the same. Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
7.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.   
8.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
12/09/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”