Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/759/2016

Puneet Mahajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In person

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/759/2016
Date of Institution	:	08/09/2016
Date of Decision	:	13/11/2017

 

Puneet Mahajan son of Shri Subhash Mahajan, resident of House No.2363, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh 160036.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, having its Registered Office at, 8^th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay Marathahalli-Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India, Pin Code – 560103.

2.     Xiaomi Exclusive, SCO No.2471-72, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Authorised representative.

3.     E-Mobiles, Anjaneya Infrastructure Project No.38-39, Soukya Road, Kacherakanahalli Hoskote Taluka, Bangalore, Rural District, Bangalore, 560067, Karnataka, India through its Authorised Representative.

4.     Amazon India Private Limited, having its registered office at Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (West), Bangalore, 560055, Karnataka, India, through its Authorised Signatory.

……Opposite Parties

 

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

                                               

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	None for OP-1
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-2
	:	OP-3 ex-parte
	:	Sh. Mohit Sharma, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for OP-4.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 2.2.2016, the complainant booked a Xiaomi Redmi Note Prime (4G) mobile phone from OP-4 and paid the amount of Rs.8,499/-.  A few days after purchase, the mobile handset started creating problems of heating up and battery draining out very quickly. On 30.3.2016 the complainant went to OP-2 and after checking he was told that there was problem with the motherboard and the same required replacement. The handset was returned after six days and the same worked smoothly for one and half months. Thereafter, the mobile set started creating the same problems and the complainant again went to the office of OP-2 on 30.4.2016.  The complainant submitted the handset to OP-2 who assured to replace the motherboard and deliver the same in a week, but, it failed to do so. On 11.7.2016, the complainant received a call from OP-1 informing that the motherboard of the mobile handset is not available and it is replacing the mobile set which would be sent at his residential address. However, subsequently OP-2 clearly told that it would neither replace the mobile handset nor refund the price thereof. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP-1 in its written reply has not disputed the factual matrix.  It has been averred that OP-1 at all times offered to settle the matter with the complainant by offering to provide a handset of a higher model.  However, the complainant at all times refused to settle the matter.  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 also not disputed the factual matrix.  It has been admitted that after the mobile handset was found not repairable, the complainant was immediately informed of taking a brand new replacement of the same, but, he outrightly refused.  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 did not appear despite due service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.11.2016. 
5.         OP-4 in its separate written statement has admitted that the complainant placed order for the mobile handset in question. However, it has been averred that
   OP-4 is merely a facilitator and is not involved in the sale transaction between the customer and seller.  The contract of sale of products on the website is strictly a bipartite contract between the customer and the seller. The warranty is provided by the manufacturer subject to the warranty terms and conditions in which OP-4 has no role.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6.         Separate rejoinders were filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written replies of OPs 1, 2 & 4.
7.         The contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
8.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsel for the contesting parties.
9.         It is evident from Annexure C-1, copy of the invoice dated 3.2.2016, that the complainant purchased a Xiaomi Redmi Note Prime mobile handset for Rs.8,499/-.   Annexure C-2 is the job sheet dated 30.4.2016 according to which the handset in question was deposited with OP-2 for the necessary repairs. Annexure C-3 is the email communications between the complainant and the OPs for the redressal of the grievance of the complainant in the form of replacement of the handset in question.  Thereafter, vide email dated 18.5.2016 (at page 17 of the paper book), the complainant apprised the OP company regarding his grievance and requested for the refund of the handset in question.  In response, the OPs vide email dated 24.5.2016 (at page 15 of the paperbook) informed the complainant that his case has already been escalated to the concerned team and they will definitely get back to him.  Vide email dated 11.7.2016 (at page 14 of the paper book), the OPs offered a new model handset replacement and requested the complainant to acknowledge the email as a confirmation for proceeding with replacement for which the complainant gave confirmation on the same very day giving his willingness for replacement of his phone with same or better configuration and he also attached the copy of the job sheet. The sole grouse of the complainant is that despite so much assurance from the OPs, till date, no replacement or refund has been made to him.
10.         The stand taken by OPs 1 & 2 is that vide Annexure C-3 replacement was offered to the complainant, but, he himself outrightly refused the same.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
11.         OP-3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte.  This act of OP-3 draws an adverse inference against it.  The non-appearance of OP-3 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant.  Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted qua it. 
12.         It has been contended by OP-4 that it being only an online portal is not involved in the sale transaction between the customer and seller and hence it cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
13.         A perusal of the emails reveal that it was between the complainant and OPs 1 to 3 that they agreed upon the replacement of the handset in question. But, as per the contention of OPs 1 & 2, there is no evidence on record according to which the complainant refused their offer of replacement. Rather the email dated 11.7.2016 (at page 14 of the paper book) is a clear evidence to show the agreement of the complainant with the OPs to accept the offer of replacement.  Hence, the act of OPs for selling a substandard product to the complainant, which got defective within a short span of its purchase and later on non-providing proper services, proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part which certainly caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
14.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs 1 to 3 are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the invoice value of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.8,499/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

15.         This order be complied with by OPs 1 to 3 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 @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
16.         The complaint qua OP-4 stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 
17.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/11/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member