Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/16/2017

Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Savinder Singh Gill

08 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/16/2017
Date of Institution	:	06/01/2017
Date of Decision	:	08/12/2017

 

Sukhwinder Singh son of Sh. Hazura Singh, resident of House No. 554/4, Ward No.11, M.C. Colony, Mundi Kharar, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

(1)     Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Limited, 8^th floor, Tower-I, Umiya Business Bay Marathahalli – Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

(2)     Amazon India having its Regd. Office Address at Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore – 560055, Karnataka, India, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory. {Deleted vide order dated 07.07.2017}.

(3)     MI Exclusive Service Centre, Shop No. 2471-72, 1^st Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Proprietor/ Auth. Signatory.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Savinder Singh Gill, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. Parshant Sethi, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3, as Proxy Counsel for Sh. Vipul Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
		Opposite Party No.2 deleted.

                       

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited and Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he bought a Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 (Gold 32 GB) mobile handset through online website of Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.12,048/- on 25.05.2016, vide bill Annexure C-1. After a month of its purchase, the said handset started giving problems with regard to its screen and audio jack due to which it used to crash down every now and then. The Complainant accordingly approached the Opposite Party No.3 in the month of August, 2016 and thereafter in December, 2016, but the officials of Opposite Party No.3 refused to redress his grievance and told him that his mobile set would be kept for 50 days for ascertaining the problems in the same. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant have preferred the present Complaint.     
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         On recording his no objection by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant on the miscellaneous application filed by Opposite Party No.2 for deletion of its name from the array of parties, the name of Opposite Party No.2 was ordered to be deleted from the array of Opposite Parties vide order dated 07.07.2017.
4.         In its written reply, Opposite Party No.1 has pleaded that on 23.03.2017 the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.3 with a Complaint regarding the product. On examination by the Service Engineer, it was ascertained that the product was facing issues related to audio jack, virtual key and headphones. The Service Engineer duly recorded the issue in Service Job Sheet (Annexure-D). After examination and reviewing the product at the Service Centre, the defects in the product were duly and properly repaired by the Technicians of the Opposite Party No.3, and the Complainant was duly requested to collect the product from the Opposite Party No.3. The Complainant, however, refused to collect the product from the Opposite Party No.3 and insisted on getting a replacement/ refund of the product. 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.
5.         In its written reply, Opposite Party No.3 has pleaded that the handset in question was tested and it was found that it has some issues regarding its audio jack and display for which answering Opposite Party sought reasonable time. It was conveyed to the Complainant that the reported fault in the display of the said handset occurred due to the negligent handling of the said handset which did not come under the warranty terms of the manufacturing company. It has been asserted that the answering Opposite Party repaired the said handset within reasonable time and contacted the Complainant several times, requesting him to collect the repaired handset, but he never turned up. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6.         The Complainant also filed separate rejoinders to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 have been controverted.
7.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
8.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.3 and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the parties. 
9.         The main grievance of the Complainant is that after depositing the mobile handset, which he purchased and having problems with regard to its screen and audio jack and use to crash every now and then, was not delivered back to him by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party No.3 contested the claim of the Complainant stating that the handset is lying with them after necessary repairs, but the Complainant never approached to receive the said handset even after various communications. However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as, the Opposite Party No.3 has miserably failed to produce any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence to show that the Complainant was ever intimated by them to take the delivery of the handset in question. Non-delivery of the mobile handset to the Complainant, after necessary repairs, to our mind, amounts to deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice. 
10.         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 & 3 are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

[a]    To refund Rs.12,048/- being the invoice price of the mobile handset along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 25.05.2016, till realization

[b]     To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]     To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

11.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @ 12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of purchase i.e. 25.05.2016, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]. 
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
08/12/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”