Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 98.
Instituted on : 26.02.2019.
Decided on : 12.01.2021.
Surender Laura Advocate, aged 44 years, Chamber No.172, District Courts, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Xiaomi Technology, India Pvt. Ltd., 8th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay Marathahalli Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Banglore(Karnatka)-560103.
- Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. Vaishnavi Summit, No.6/B, 7th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3rd Block, Koramangala, Banglore-560034.
- Konde Products and Services Pvt. Ltd., 9th & 10th floor, Office No.1004, Brigade IRV, Nallurhali, Whitefiled, Banglore, Karnataka-560066.
- Authorized Service Centre of Xiaomi(MI), Dhingra Services 1st Floor, Beside Vijay Bank, Narayana Complex Chotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak(Hr)-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Ms. Renu Shastri, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for OP no.1.
Sh. Ankur Dua, Advocate for the OPs no.2 and 3.
OP no.4 already exparte vide order dated 10.4.2019.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased one mobile phone set of Xiaomi, Model POCO F-1 bearing IMEI No.864558041740186 from the opposite parties for Rs.23,999/- on dated 12.09.2018, vide bill no.#FABBA11900083732, through online via OP no.2 and shipped to complainant by OP no.3 with one year guaranty/warranty. But after some time, manufacturing defect like ‘Yellow Patch’ appeared on the display Panel of the mobile in question. In this regard, on dated 19.2.2019, the complainant approached the service centre of OP no.1 and the officials of the said service centre assured him that the mobile is in warranty and the display panel will be changed free of cost by the company. But later on, the complainant approached the service centre to receive his mobile phone back, and the officials of the service centre demanded Rs.6,016.32/- of the display panel on the pretext that patch occurs due to outside pressure on the mobile set. The complainant asked them to show him any spot or remarks on the body of mobile set, so that it can be proved that the patch occured due to other pressure but the officials of OP no.4 refused to repair the mobile set in warranty period. Hence, there is clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new mobile set or to refund the gross amount of Rs.23,999/- spent by the complainant on the purchase of mobile and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has allegedly purchased a mobile phone sold under the MI brand namely, POCO FI handset on 12.09.2018 for Rs.22,656/- bearing IMEI no. 864558041740186. It is further submitted that the technicians of the authorized service centre found dents on handset and the display was chipped off, which unequivocally proves that the product has been dropped/mishandled at the hands of the complainant due to which the product got damaged and yellow patch occurred on display. It is also submitted that the technicians of authorized service centre of OP no.1 requested the complainant to pay repair costs since any kind of customer induced damage is not covered under standard warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product. But the complainant has refused to pay the repair costs and the product was duly returned to the complainant without repair. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply has submitted that the OP no. 2 is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transaction between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. It is also submitted that the product purchased by the complainant has not been manufactured by the answering opposite party and the answering opposite party has no role to provide the warranty of the product sold by the seller through the flipkart platform of answering opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
4. Opposite party No. 3 in its reply has submitted that the role of the answering opposite party is only limited to reselling the products of various manufacturers and its role comes to the end as soon as the product ordered is delivered at the address provided by the customer. It is also submitted that in the present case, the answering opposite party has delivered the product in a sealed box to the complainant within the time specified in the order and hence, there is no deficiency of service on the party of the answering opposite party. However, OP No.4 did not appear despite service. As such OP No.4 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.4.2019.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 28.11.20219. Ld. Counsel for OP No.1 has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A and Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on dated 21.12.2020. Ld. Counsel for the OPs No. 2 and 3 made a statement on dated 21.12.2020 that reply already filed on their behalf be read in evidence and closed their evidence on dated 21.12.2020.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that as per the bill Ex.C1 the complainant had purchased the mobile on dated 12.09.2018 for Rs.22656/- whereas the complainant has submitted the cost of mobile set as Rs.23999/-. As per service record placed on record as Ex.C2 dated 19.2.2019 the defects/fault description i.e. display edge yellow patch appeared in the mobile phone during warranty period but the same could not be repaired/replaced by the opposite parties despite repeated requests. On the other hand, contention of opposite party No.1 is that the mobile in question has suffered customer induced damage i.e. damage caused at the hands of the complainant. There were dents on the handset which were caused by dropping/mishandling by the complainant, due to which yellow patch occurred on the handset. But to prove the same, no expert report has been placed on record by the opposite parties that the damages occurred due to mishandling. Only a photograph Ex.R6 is placed on record but from this photographs it is not proved that there was mishandling on the part customer/complainant. As the mobile set could not be repaired/replaced by the opposite parties during the warranty period, hence there is deficiency in service on their part and opposite party No.1 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 20% depreciation on the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.18125/-(Rs.22656/- less 20%).
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.18125/-(Rupees eighteen thousand one hundred and twenty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 26.02.2019 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, the complainant is directed to deposit the mobile in question with the opposite parties at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.1.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
12.01.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
