Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/50/2018

Arjun Singh Thakur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi Technology - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/50/2018
Date of Institution	:	23/01/2018
Date of Decision	:	17/09/2018

 

Arjun Singh Thakur S/o Sh. Kishan Singh, R/o Vill. Panjehli, P.O. Galot, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh – 174101.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]    Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, 8^th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay Marathahalli, Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India-560103, through its Managing Director/ Director.

[2]    Electra Care, Quite Office No.1, 1^st Floor, Opposite Khukhrain Bhawan, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh-160022, through its Proprietor/ Manager.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM        :	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh.Atul Goyal, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that the Complainant had purchased one Redmi Note 4G from Flipkart on 10.07.2015 for Rs.8,000/- vide bill Annexure-A. During May, 2017, on experiencing charging problem in the said handset, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 on 26.05.2017 and submitted Rs.120/- as inspection charges, whereafter the Opposite Party No.2 gave repair estimate between Rs.350/-. However, when on 29.05.2017 the Complainant approached to Opposite Party No.2 to collect the handset, he was asked to deposit Rs.1299/- which the Complainant paid vide Bills Annexure-B. Thereafter, on again experiencing similar kind of problems, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2. This time Opposite Party No.2 charged an amount of Rs.708/- from the Complainant vide Invoice dated 22.08.2017 Annexure-C. After one week, the charging problem again surfaced due to which Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 on 29.08.2017 who demanded Rs.6,000/- to repair the mobile. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 filed its reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Authorized Service Centre of answering Opposite Party on each occasion duly repaired the product on cost in accordance with the warranty terms and conditions associated with the product and returned the product in proper working condition to the Complainant. On 29.8.2017 the Complainant again approached the Authorized Service Centre. The Service Engineer duly recorded the issue in Service Job Sheet Annexure-D. After examining and reviewing the product at the Service Centre by the Service Engineer, it was found that the product was facing issue related to “Cannot Charge”. The Complainant thereafter was duly informed by the Authorized Service Centre that since the product is already out of warranty, he would be required to pay the cost of repairing the product. However, the Complainant refused to pay the repair costs and the product was duly returned to him. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has made a statement on 20.06.2018 to the effect that Opposite Party No.2 adopts the reply filed by Opposite Party No.1.
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 Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties.
7.         On perusal of the documents placed by the Opposite Party No.1 as Annexure-C (colly), we find that the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1298/- on 26.05.2017 towards repair of charging problem of the mobile set. On 21.8.2017 the Complainant has again paid Rs.706/- towards repairs of charging issue. Again, on 29.8.2017, the Opposite Party No.2 has again asked the Complainant for the payment of Rs.6547.82/- towards repair of charging problem which was already rectified by them on 26.05.2017 and 21.08.2017. Repeatedly asking the repair costs more than the cost of the mobile handset for charging problem within a short span of three months amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, which certainly has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant and forced him to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation.  
8.         In view of the above, the complaint deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed against the Opposite Parties and they are directed, jointly and severally, as under:-

 

1. To refund Rs.1299/- + Rs.708/- = Rs.2007/- spent by the Complainant towards the repair of the mobile handset in question;
2. To pay Rs.5,000/-, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant and also for deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice.

 

3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

 

15.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [i] & [ii] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.  

 

16.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
17/09/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”