DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/102/2022

Date of Institution : 31.03.2022

Date of Decision : 06.12.2023

Pulkit Garg aged about 22 years son of Shri Tarloki Nath resident of Guru Ji Enclave, Gill Nagar, Dhanaula Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala (Pb.). …Complainant

Versus

1. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, Building Orchid, Block-E, Embassy Tech, Village Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru-560103 through its Authorized Signatory.

2. MI Exclusive Service Centre, Raju Mobile Care, backside Azad Medical Hall, Near Balmiki Chowk, Barnala-148101 through Incharge Service Centre.

3. M/s New Singla Telecom, New Bus Stand Road, Barnala through its Authorized person/representative.

…Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Present: Sh. AK Jindal Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. PS Rattan counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Opposite parties No. 2 and 3 exparte.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI MEMBER):

    The complainant Pulkit Garg filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant purchased a Redmi Mobile Model 9 having IMEI No. 869285054782351/869285054782369 (Old) and 867476040012118/867476040012126 (New) from opposite party No. 3 amounting to Rs. 9,300/- vide invoice No. 60 dated 28.10.2021 on cash. After lapse of few days from the date of purchase of said mobile the complainant received few problems like hanging and some apps like You Tuble were not functioning properly and complainant approached  the opposite party No. 3 from whom the complainant purchased the said mobile who referred the complainant to the service centre i.e. opposite party No. 2. After routine check up of the mobile by opposite party No. 2 handed over the mobile to the complainant without proper and satisfaction repair and complainant received problems in the said mobile.

3. It is further alleged that in the month of December 2021 the complainant again received problems in his mobile and he contacted the opposite party No. 2 who duly inspected the said mobile of the complainant and found that there is software problem. In this regard a job card has been opened on 31.12.2021 vide No. WXIN2112310003622 and assured that software of the mobile has been replaced and in future mobile will not give any problem but again the complainant received problems in the said mobile. The complainant again visited the opposite party No. 2 where the complainant come to know that there is a problem in display and complainant handed over the said mobile to the Agent of the opposite party No. 2 on 25.1.2022 and opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that the display of the mobile has been replaced but again the complainant received problems in the said mobile. But no job card was opened regarding the said defect inspite of request of complainant. The complainant again visited the opposite party No. 2 where he come to know that there is problem in mainboard and a job card has been opened on 21.2.2022 vide No. WXIN2202210005355 by opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that the main board of the mobile has been replaced but the problems not cured and complainant again received problems in the said mobile, which is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant many times requested the opposite parties to change the said mobile or to remove the defect of the said mobile but opposite parties failed to do so. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to rectify the defect of the said mobile set and/or to change the same with new one and/otherwise to refund the entire costs of the said mobile set alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization.  

2) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

4. The opposite party No. 1 filed written version in the which they submitted that all MI, Redmi, Poco and Xiaomi brand mobile phones sold within India are sold under a standard set of warranty terms and conditions including the product purchased by and delivered to the complainant. On December 31, 2021 the complainant approached the authorized service centre of opposite party No. 1 with issues related to the product. The complainant informed the technician of the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1 that the complainant was facing issue related to the product. The service engineer duly recorded the issue and requested the complainant to wait until the examination/inspection is completed. After examining the product at the service centre the defects related to the product was duly repaired for free of costs as per warranty provisions by the technicians of the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1 and product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition as can be ascertained from service job sheet No. WXIN2112310003622. On February 21, 2022 the complainant again approached the authorized service centre of opposite party No. 1 with issued related to the product. After examining the product at service centre the defects related to the product was duly repaired for free of costs as per warranty provisions by the technicians of the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1 and product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition as can be ascertained from service job sheet No. WXIN2202210005355. 

5. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has not in any proved that the product is presently suffering from a defect and such defect is a manufacturing defect. He also not proved that the product was not repaired by the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1. The complainant submitted the handset with the authorized service centre on two occasions i.e. on December 31,2021 and February 21, 2022 where the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1 duly repaired and returned the handset to the complainant in proper working condition on all of the occasions. The handset was repaired for free of cost and was accepted by the complainant without raising any objection regarding its repair on each occasion. There was no manufacturing defect in the handset. The complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the handset by way of technical evidence of any technical expert/reputed technical laboratory. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No. 1 or any of its agents. The service centre of the opposite party No. 1 has repaired the product of the complainant in a complete manner. The complainant has not provided any evidence to prove any manufacturing defect in the product. Lastly, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

6. The opposite party No. 2 preferred to remain exparte. The opposite party No. 3 initially appeared in person but later on none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 3 and it also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 1.7.2022. 

7. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence copy of invoice Ex.C-1, copy of service record Ex.C-2, affidavit of complainant Ex.C-3, copy of notice Ex.C-4, postal receipts Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.

8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence copy of terms and conditions of warranty Ex.OP-1/1, warranty statement Ex.OP-1/2, service record dated 31.12.2021 Ex.OP-1/3, service record dated 21.2.2022 Ex.OP-1/4, affidavit of Raju son of Sh. Gamdoor Singh Ex.OP-1/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No. 1. 

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appearing parties and have gone through the record on the file.

10. It is proved by the complainant that he purchased the mobile set manufactured by the opposite party No. 1 from the opposite party No. 3 vide bill dated 28.10.2021 for Rs. 9,3,00/- Ex.C-1. After a few days of purchase the said mobile got defective and it gave problems like hanging and some Apps like Youtube were not functioning properly. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 from whom the complainant had purchased the said mobile who referred the complainant to the service centre i.e. opposite party No. 2. After examining the product the mobile was handed over to the complainant. In the month of December 2021 the complainant again received problems in his mobile and the complainant contacted the opposite party No. 2 who duly inspected the said mobile and found that there was software fault, in this regard a job card was opened on 31.12.2021 vide No.  WXIN2112310003622 Ex.OP-1/3 and assured to the complainant that the software of the mobile has been replaced and in future the mobile will not give any problem but again the complainant received problems in the said mobile. The complainant again visited the service centre i.e. opposite party No. 2 where the complainant came to know that there was a problem in the display and the complainant handed over the said mobile to the Agent of the opposite party No. 2 on 25.1.2022 and opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that the display of the mobile has been changed but no job card was opened regarding the said defect. Again the complainant received problems in the said mobile. The complainant again visited the service centre i.e. opposite party No. 2 where he came to know that there was problem in main board and a job card was opened on 21.2.2022 vide No. WXIN2202210005355 Ex.C-2 by opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that the main board of the mobile has been replaced but the problem was not cured and the complainant again received problems in the said mobile.

11. The complainant visited the service centre i.e. opposite party No. 2 three times. The employees of the service centre repaired the mobile phone of the complainant three time but failed to rectify the defect in the mobile. In the job card dated 31.12.2021 Ex.OP-1/3 the fault mentioned is “Receiver no sound in non calling state”, the service centre replaced the receiver. In the copy of the job card dated 21.2.2022 Ex.C-2 the fault mentioned is “Auto power off and repair method is Replace Main Board”.

12. On the other hand the opposite party No. 1 admitted that the handset was duly repaired on December 31, 2021 and February 21, 2022 at the authorized service centre of opposite party No. 1. The handset was repaired free of costs and the complainant accepted it without raising any objection. 

13. As per affidavit of Service Engineer Raju employee of Raju Mobile Care, the authorized service provider of Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited (opposite party No. 1), the handset of the complainant was examined on December 31, 2021 when the complainant approached the Service Engineer as he was facing issues relating to the product. The product was duly repaired as per standard warranty conditions for free of costs and the product was returned to the complainant in proper working condition. Again on February 21, 2022 when the complainant approached the service centre for issues relating to the product, the product was repaired as per standard warranty conditions free of costs and the handset was returned to the complainant in proper working condition.

14. From the job sheets Ex.OP-1/3 and Ex.OP-1/4 it is clear that even after replacing the receiver and main board of the said mobile the service centre could not rectify the defect in the mobile of the complainant. So, it is proved on the file that the mobile set in question is having some manufacturing defect. 

15. On perusal of the file it is established that opposite party No. 3 is the seller of the mobile in question. The seller is acting as an agent of the opposite party No. 1, therefore there is no liability of opposite party No. 3 for any defect in the mobile set. The opposite party No. 2 also tried its best to repair the mobile by replacing its different parts but could not rectify the defect in the mobile. So, the complaint again the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 is dismissed. By not replacing the mobile set of the complainant which is having manufacturing defect is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No. 1. 

16. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to refund the costs of the mobile set amounting to Rs. 9,300/- to the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 is also directed to pay Rs. 3,300/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. However, the complainant is bound to return the defective mobile set alongwith accessories at the time of receiving the above said payment. Compliance of the 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:

        6th Day of December 2023

 

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member