Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/386/2018

Sunil Kumar Mallan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ridhi Sachdeva

16 Oct 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION -I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/386/2018
Date of Institution	:	10/08/2018
Date of Decision	:	16/10/2020

 

Sunil Kumar Mallan, Advocate, S/o Lt. Thakar Dass, Office at Justice For You (Law Firm), Booth No.14-B, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

Also Resident of House No.3493, S.K. Model School, Gali No.3, Putlighar, Amritsar.

 

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1]      The MD/CEO/GM/Auth. Signatory, Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, 8^th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay, Marathahalli – Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India – 560103.

 

2]      Electro Enterprises, SCO 1039, Sector 22-B, Opposite Bus Stand, Chandigarh – 160017, through its Prop./Partner/GM.

 

3]      Simran Enterprises, Authorized Service Centre of OP No.1, 7-B, 1^st Floor, Rani Ka Bagh, Opposite District Library, Amritsar, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager.

 

4]      M/s Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, 8^th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay, Marathahalli – Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India – 560103, through its General Manager.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh.Arjun Kundra, Vice Counsel for Sh.Atul Goyal, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 4.
	:	OPs No.2 & 3 ex-parte.

Per Dr.S.K.Sardana, Member

 

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant had purchased one Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 from Opposite Party No.2 on 10.05.2017 for a sale consideration of Rs.13,900/-. On 14.06.2018 the said mobile started occurring technical problems. As the Complainant was at Amritsar visit, he was advised by the Customer Care Helpline to visit/handover the said mobile handset to Opposite Party No.3. The same was accordingly handed over to Opposite Party No.3 for repairs, who charged Rs.767/- for the same. The mobile stopped working next day evening. Being holidays for two days, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party No.3 on 19.06.2018 and reported the problem. The Opposite Party No.3 tried its best, but could not repair the handset and instead of returning the handset, its Service Engineer tried to steal some components; when it was objected by the Complainant, team of Opposite Party No.3 started using obnoxious language in an intolerable loud pitch. Eventually, legal notice dated 22.06.2018 was served upon the Opposite Parties, but the same failed to fructify. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.  However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 26.09.2018
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 4 contested the Complaint and filed reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that on 14.06.2018 the Complainant approached the authorized service centre of answering Respondents with the issues in the product. On examination by the Service Engineer, it was ascertained that the product was facing issue relating to speaker, which was repaired on cost basis in accordance with the warranty terms and conditions associated with the product and returned the same in proper working condition to the Complainant. On 19.06.2018 the Complainant again approached the authorized service centre of the answering Opposite Parties with issues in the product. The Complainant informed the Service Engineer that the product had become dead. The Complainant thereafter was duly informed that since the product is already out of warranty, hence he would be required to pay the cost of repairing. However, the Complainant refused to pay the repair costs and product was duly returned to him. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 4 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 & 4.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the contesting Parties along with the written arguments of Complainant.
7.         On perusal of Annexure-A, placed on record by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 4, which contains warranty terms and conditions, it is observed that the warranty of the handset is for a period of one year. It is not disputed that the Complainant purchased the handset in question from M/s Electro Enterprises (Opposite Party No.2) on 10.05.2017 as is evident from Annexure C-1 of the complaint.  It is also not disputed that the said handset was taken by the Complainant to the Service Centre on 11.06.2018 and paid Rs.767/- towards its repair, as the handset was out of warranty.
8.         It is the case of the Complainant that when again the mobile handset stopped working, the same was taken to Opposite Party No.3 for repairs on 19.06.2018. A perusal of the service record (job-sheet) placed on record by the Complainant himself at page no.31 of the paper book, it is evident that handset was dead and was also out of warranty. Since the handset was out of warranty, the Complainant should have allowed the Opposite Parties to inspect the same and should have asked for the necessary charges to be paid for the repairs of the handset. However, the same has not been done by the Complainant, upon which the handset was returned back to him. All this leads to an irresistible conclusion that the Complainant was bound to borne the repairing charges as the product was out of warranty and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. Hence, in our opinion, no case is made out against Opposite Parties and the present Complaint qua Opposite Parties deserves to be dismissed. 
9.         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.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

16^th Oct., 2020

                        Sd/-  

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER