Haryana

Karnal

CC/201/2017

Avnander Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Pardeep Sandya

07 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.201 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 15.06.2017

                                                         Date of decision:07.03.2018

 

Avander Sharma resident of Fiat no.201-Pham Regency, District Karnal.                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., having its office at 380 Belerica Road, Shri City, Siddam Agraharam village Varahadiyapalem, Mandal Chittoorh, District Andhra Pardesh-517541.

2. Tara Telecom, shop no.35, Melaram School Market, Karnal/Authorised Service Center of Xiaomi Technology.

 

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

             

 

 Present  Shri Pardeep Kamboj Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for OPs.

 

               

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant purchased the mobile Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 on 5.10.2016 for Rs.11,999/- with order no.402-6944032-9389959 from the OP no.1 with the warranty of one year. After sometime the said mobile set started giving problem. It was having auto on off problem. Complainant approached the OP no.2 service centre of the company on 25.05.2017 and reported power issue in his unit. OP no.2 repaired the unit by replacing the battery and sub board and the complainant was assured by the OPs that they have repaired the unit and there will be no problem in the unit. After ten days the complainant again approached to the OP no.2 and reported the hanging and display problem in his unit. Engineer of the company told to complainant that some parts of the unit got replaced, but the parts are not available in the stock and it will be take time for 15 days. After that the complainant approached to the OP no.2 the engineer of the company told that the unit unrepairable due to unavailability of required parts. Complainant requested the OP no.2 for replacement of the defective unit, but official of the OP no.2 lingered the matter by one pretext or the other and lastly refused to replace/refund the price of the unit. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the complainant has purchased Redmi Note 3 Gold (32GB) mobile phone for Rs.11,999/- Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. , vide invoice dated October 5, 2016. On 25.5.2017 complainant approached OP no.2 with a complaint regarding the product. On examination by the service engineer, it was ascertained that the product was facing power related issues. The service engineer duly recorded the issues in service jobsheet no.WXIN1705250002221 and provided the jobsheet to the complainant. The defects related to the product were duly and properly repaired by the technicians of OP no.2 and the product was delivered to the complainant without any charge under the warranty terms and conditions in proper working condition. It is further stated that complainant never approached the authorized service centre of OP no.1 in connection with further defects in the product. Complainant has not provided any substantial proof of the alleged visits to the service centre.  The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 3.11.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sameer BS Rao Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 16.2.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the documents placed on file carefully.

6.             It is admitted by the parties that complainant purchased a mobile Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 on 5.10.2016 for a sum of Rs.11,999/- from OP no.1. After sometime the mobile set started giving problem and the complainant approached the OP no.2 and reported power issue in his mobile set. OP no.2 repaired the mobile set by replacing the battery.

7.             It is alleged by the complainant that after ten days the complainant again approached the OP no.2 and reported about hanging and display problem in the mobile set and the engineer of the company told the complainant that some part got replaced but the same is not available in the stock and it will take time about 15 days. When the complainant contacted the OP no.2 after 15 days the Engineer told the complainant that the mobile set is unrepairable due to unavailability of required part. According to the OPs the complainant had only approached once for the power generated problem and the battery of the mobile set has been changed under warranty. Thereafter, the complainant never reported any problem in the mobile set to the OPs. As alleged by the complainant that he has approached the OP no.2 regarding hanging and display problem, so the onus was on the complainant to prove the same. The complainant has not placed any job sheet vide which it can be proved that the complainant had approached the OP no.2 regarding hanging and display problem. Without any evidence it cannot be said that there was any hanging and display problem in the mobile set in question and the complainant had approached the OP no.1 for the same. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove the allegations that the mobile set was having  hanging and display problem and he approached the OP no.1. Hence we found no deficiency on the part of the OP.

8.             Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we found no merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 07.03.2018

                                                               

 

                                                                  President,

                                                            District Consumer Dispute      (Anil Sharma)                                     Redressal Forum, Karnal.

           Member