Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/704/2016

Maharaj Gajanand - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Aman Priye Jain

05 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/704/2016
Date of Institution	:	29/08/2016
Date of Decision	:	05/12/2017

 

 

1.     Maharaj Gajanand s/o Gopi Ram, H.No.2287, Top Floor, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh.

2.     Nisha Bhagt, H.No.23, Ram Vihar, Baltana, Mohali-140507.

…..Complainants

V E R S U S

1.     Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited through its Managing Director, 5^th Flr, Delta Blk, Embassy Tech Sq, Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubeesanahalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560103.

2.     MI Exclusive Service centre through its Manager, Shop No.SCO-2471-72, First Floor, 22-C, Chandigarh 160022.

3.     Flipkart through CEO 6/B, Mahatyagi Laksmidevi Rd, Koramangala 1A Block, Koramangala 3 Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560034.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Aman Priye Jain, Counsel for complainants.
	:	Sh. Vipul Sharma, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-2
	:	Sh. Rohit Kumar, Counsel for OP-3.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 9.7.2016, the complainants purchased a Redme note-3 32 GB mobile set, manufactured by OP-1, from the online site of OP-2. The order was placed in the name of complainant No.2.  The said mobile set abruptly stopped functioning at all within a week of its purchase.  The complainant gave the mobile set to OP-2 for repair on 23.7.2016 and he was intimated by the employee of OP-2 that the motherboard is not working and the same required to be changed. In the job sheet the delivery date of the mobile was mentioned as 7.8.2016.  However, OP-2 failed to repair and deliver the mobile set back to the complainants despite service of legal notice. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainants have filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP-1 in its written reply has averred that its authorised service centre duly received the complainant’s product, examined the same for defects and repaired it as necessary, in accordance with the warranty terms and conditions as applicable. However, complainant No.1 refused to collect the repaired product from OP-2. It has been contended that the complainants have failed to provide any substantive proof regarding manufacturing defects in the product. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OP-2 in its separate written reply has admitted that it received the handset for repair. However, it has been denied that the complainants were ever informed by the employees of OP-2 that the motherboard of the mobile was defective.  After successful repairs of the mobile, due intimation was given on the mobile number provided by complainant No.1, but, he failed to turn up to collect the same for ulterior motives. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         OP-3 in its separate written reply has averred that it is merely a marketplace which offers a platform to third party vendors/sellers and third party buyers to transact inter se.  OP-3 does not in any manner engage in any offer for sale or sale of any products, either through online portal or otherwise at all. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.
5.         Separate replications were filed by the complainants denying all the averments in the written replies of OPs 1, 2 & 3.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
7.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
8.         It is evident from page 8 of the paper book that the complainants purchased one Redmi Note 3 mobile phone for Rs.11,999/- on 9.6.2016 and the same was submitted to the service centre i.e. OP-2 on 23.7.2016 as per page 9 of complaint, with faults of hanging and network problem. As per the case of the complainants, the handset in question has neither been repaired nor returned to them till date despite service of legal notice.  Pertinently, the job sheet (annexed at page 9) is having mention of expected return date as 7.8.2016. 
9.         The stand taken by OP-1/manufacturer is that the service centre/OP-2 repaired the handset of the complainants, but, it were the complainants who chose not to collect the same.  Hence, it has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 
10.         On the other hand, OP-2/service centre has admitted that the handset was repaired by it and proper information was given to complainant No.1 on his mobile, but, he himself chose not to turn up to collect the same.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on its part.
11.         OP-3 has contended that it, being only an online portal, is not liable for any deficiency in service as it merely offers a platform to the vendors and the buyers for the transaction.
12.         As per written statement of OP-1, the complainants refused to collect the repaired handset from OP-2 and insisted on getting replacement/refund.  Interestingly, on the job sheet, date of expected repair is mentioned as 7.8.2016.  However, OP-2 in para 8 has contended that requisition of the required part for the necessary repair was sent to OP-1, but, the same was received from OP-1 on 20.9.2016 only and thereafter the complainant was intimated on 22.9.2016 to collect the repaired handset. A perusal of the job sheet and the written statement of OP-2 shows that they are contradictory to each other. On one hand, OPs are taking the stand that the handset was repaired in time and on the other they are admitting delay in the necessary repairs due to non-availability of the part. The handset in question was submitted with OP-2 on 23.7.2016 and the same, according to the OPs, was made available in repaired condition after expiry of approximately two months. We are of the opinion that the OPs cannot force the complainants to wait for unlimited period of time.  In the present scenario, when life is running so fast, no work - household or office - can be even thought of in the absence of mobile phone.  Pertinently, to corroborate their stand, the OPs have failed to place on record any proof in the shape of some email/SMS/letter etc. by which the complainants were informed to collect the repaired mobile set. Mere bald assertions of the OPs, sans any documentary proof, cannot be believed as such.  Hence, the act of the OPs for non-repairing the mobile handset and keeping the same in their possession, despite being under warranty, proves deficiency in service on their part which certainly caused mental and physical harassment to the complainants.
13.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the invoice value of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.11,999/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realisation.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to them;
3. To pay to the complainants Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

14.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
05/12/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member