DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/41/2023
Date of Institution: 17.04.2023
Date of Decision: 24.07.2024
Chandni aged 23 wife of Rahul Kumar resident of Harijan Basti, Ward No. 6, Tapa, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, Head Office, Orchid Building, Block E, Embassy Tech Village, Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahali, Bangalore, Karnatka through its Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s Garg Telecom, School Road, Opposite Street No. 6, Tapa, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Parmod Kumar son of Ashok Kumar.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. Deepak Bansal Adv counsel for complainant.
Ms. Hardesh Rehal Adv counsel for O.P-1.
Sh. Gagandeep Garg Adv counsel for O.P-2.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, Head Office, Orchid Building, Block E, Embassy Tech Village, Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahali, Bangalore, Karnatka through its Authorized Signatory & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is a permanent resident of Tapa, District Barnala and the opposite party No. 2 is a dealer of opposite party No.1 who sell the products manufactured by opposite party No.1 and sold by opposite party No.2. It is alleged that the complainant was intended to purchase a LED for her home for personal use, as such the complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.2 and they assured the complainant of the best quality of the LED manufactured by opposite party No 1 and further assured the complainant of their best services. It is further alleged that believing upon the assurance given by the opposite party No 2 the complainant purchased one LED 50 inch MIX Series manufactured by opposite party No 1 and paid an amount of Rs.34,500/- to the opposite party No 2 on dated 30.10.2022 against invoice no. 222 dated 30.10.2022, for which the opposite party No 2 told the complainant about the one year guarantee of said LED. It is alleged that after the use of the said LED, just after two days the said LED started giving problem of hanging and black screen as such, the complainant visited the opposite party No 2 and requested the opposite party No 2 to change the said defected LED with a new one. But the opposite party No 2 asked the complainant that the Panel of said LED shall be replaced and his LED will become perfect. Thereafter, few days the Panel of said defected LED was changed but on 09.01.2023 the said LED again started giving same problem and this time the Panel of said LED was again replaced on around 24.01.2023. But after few days on dated 01.02.2023, the said LED again started giving same problem and the complainant again visited the opposite party No 2 and requested to change the said defected LED with a new one. But the opposite party No 2 asked the complainant that the mother board of said LED shall be replaced and his LED will become perfect and the mother board of said LED was replaced. It is further alleged that after just about two months, on dated 05.04.2023, the said LED again started giving same kind of problem of hanging and black screen and the complainant again visited the opposite party No 2 and requested to change the said defected LED with a new one. But the OP no.2 asked the complainant that now nothing can be done and flatly refused to redress the grievance of the complainant. The said LED is having inherent manufacturing defect in it and due to this reason the said LED time and again started giving the problems repeatedly and which clearly shows that the inherent defects could not be cured. The act of the opposite parties clearly comes within the realm of "Deficiency in Services" and "Unfair Trade Practice". Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite parties may be directed to replace the said LED with a new one or to refund the amount of Rs. 34,500/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum till realization.
- To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing physical and mental harassment.
- Further, to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary objections interalia on the ground that the Opposite Party No. 1 is a manufacturing company-Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited and the present complaint is false, frivolous, concocted and filed to unnecessarily harass the opposite party No. 1. The complainant has alleged in the present case that the complainant has purchased a television ("Product") sold under the Mi brand-namely, the MIX Series on October 30, 2022 for INR 34,500. It is further alleged that on November 3, 2022, the Complainant raised a complaint with the opposite party No. 1 for the first time with an issue related to the Product, wherein the service engineer of the authorized service centre examined and inspected the Product at the Complainant's address and after examination and inspection of the Product, the Product was duly repaired by the service engineer of the authorized service centre for free of cost as can be ascertained from the jobsheet TVIN2211030002339. It is alleged that again on November 12, 2022, the complainant again raised a complaint with the opposite party No. 1 with an issue related to the Product, wherein the service engineer of the authorized service centre and examined the Product at the Complainant's address and after examining and inspecting the Product, the service engineer of the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1 duly replaced the panel of the Product for free of cost as can be ascertained from the jobsheet TVIN2211120001719. It is alleged that again on January 12, 2023, the complainant raised a complaint with the opposite party No. 1 with an issue related to the Product, wherein the service engineer of the authorized service centre examined and inspected the Product at the Complainant's address and after examination and inspection of the Product, the Product was duly repaired by the service engineer of the authorized service centre for free of cost as can be ascertained from the jobsheet TVIN2301120001269. Again on March 2, 2023, the complainant raised a complaint with an issue related to the Product,wherein the service engineer of the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1 inspected and examined the Product at the Complainant's address and after examining and inspecting the Product, the service engineer of the authorized service centre duly replaced the motherboard of the Product for free of cost as can be ascertained from the jobsheet TVIN2303020000548. Accordingly, there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite party No. 1. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 reiterated the averment as mentioned in the preliminary objections and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
4. The opposite party No. 2 filed written version by taking legal objections on the ground that the complainant has got no locus-standi or cause of action to file the present complaint against the opposite party No.2 as opposite party No. 2 has only sold the LED being agent of opposite party No. 1. The present complaint is frivolous, vexatious and liable to be dismissed under section of 26 CP Act. The present complaint is wholly mis conceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and liable to be dismissed as such etc.
5. On merits, it is submitted that complainant never approached to the opposite party No. 2 regarding problem of the said LED. Moreover opposite party No. 2 only sold the said LED to complainant, guarantee/ warrantee is of company opposite party No. 1 and any fault if comes to the said LED that will be removed by opposite party No. 1. It is submitted that it is matter of record the at complainant registered any complaint with opposite party No. 1. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has suffered the statement on 5.12.2023 that I do not want to file any rejoinder against the version of opposite parties.
7. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Chandni Ex.C-1, Pen Drive Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence.
8. The opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sameer BS Rao as Ex.OP1/1, copy of service record as Ex.OP1/2 (containing 8 pages), copy of limited warranty statement as Ex.OP1/3 (containing 5 pages), copy of warranty policy as Ex.OP1/4, affidavit of Sameer BS Rao as Ex.OP1/5 and closed the evidence.
9. The opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Parmod Kumar Ex.O.P2/1, copy of bill dated 30.10.2022 Ex.O.P2/2 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
11. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has purchased one LED 50 inch MIX Series from the opposite party No. 2 on 30.10.2022 vide invoice No. 222 of Rs. 34,500/-. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the opposite party No 2 told the complainant about the one year guarantee of said LED. Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that after two days from its purchase the said LED started giving problem of hanging and black screen, as such the complainant visited the opposite party No 2 and requested the opposite party No 2 to change the said defected LED with a new one. But the opposite party No 2 advised the complainant to get changed the Panel of said LED and on 09.01.2023 the said LED again started giving same problem and this time the Panel of said LED was again replaced on around 24.01.2023. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that on 01.02.2023 the said LED again started giving same problem and the complainant again requested to change the said defected LED but on the assurance of the opposite parties this time opposite parties replaced the mother board of said LED. Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that on 5.04.2023, the said LED again started giving same kind of problem of hanging and black screen and the complainant again visited the opposite party No 2 and requested to change the said defected LED with a new one. But the opposite party No. 2 this time flatly refused to redress the grievance of the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the said LED is suffering from manufacturing defect and the defect of the LED is not cureable.
12. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 argued that the complainant raised complaint first time on 3.11.2022 and the Engineer of the authorized service centre examined and inspected the LED at the complainant’s address and after examination and inspection the LED was duly repaired. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 further argued that the complainant again raised the complaint on 12.11.2022 and the Engineer of the authorized service centre replaced the panel free of cost. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 further argued that similarly the complainant again approached the opposite party No. 1 on 12.1.22023 and 2.3.2023 and the Engineer of opposite party No. 1 repaired and replaced the mother board of the LED in question free of cost. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 further argued that the complainant has not produced any expert report to prove the manufacturing defect in the LED TV. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1.
13. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 argued that the complainant has got no cause of action against the opposite party No. 2 as the opposite party No. 2 is only seller and if there is manufacturing defect then the opposite party No. 1 is liable.
14. We have gone through the entire facts and evidence produced by the complainant and the opposite parties. It is admitted case of the opposite party No. 1 that the complainant has purchased the LED for Rs. 34,500/- and the same was under warranty. The opposite party No. 1 himself admitted that the said LED was defective and the same was repaired by the Engineer of opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 himself admitted in the written statement that the defective panel of the said LED was replaced two times and the mother board was also replaced on 2.3.2023. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant again approached the opposite party No. 1 on 5.4.2023 but opposite party No. 1 denied to accede the request of the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 produced job sheet Ex.O.P1/2 (containing 8 pages) from which it established that the defects in the LED was occurred immediately after purchase. The complainant approached the opposite party to change the LED as the defects were occurred number of times. It is clear from the job sheet that LED was got repaired 4 times within the period of about six months, which proves that LED in question suffered with manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified. Therefore, by not replacing the defective LED in question which was under warranty is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No. 1.
15. Therefore, in view of the above discussion the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to replace the LED in question with same model or refund the purchase amount of said LED i.e. Rs. 34,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization. The complainant is directed to handover the defective LED to the opposite party No. 1, when the opposite party No. 1 handover new LED. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 7,500/- on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
24th Day of July, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
