Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 208 2nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran
Consumer Complaint No : 42 of 2020
Date of Institution : 20.07.2020
Date of Decision : 11.08.2021
Sukhpreet Singh (UID/Adhar no. 4128 9119 4441) son of Sh. Balbir Singh resident of village Bahmniwala Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.
......Complainant
Versus
- Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited Orchid (Block E), Ground Floor to 4th Floor, Embassy Tech village, Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring road Banglore-560103, through its Managing Director,
- M.I. Service Centre, Near Lakeer Sahib, Gurudwara, Tarn Taran, through its sole Proprietor,
- M.I. Service Centre, near Pingalwara/ Bus Stand, Amritsar, through its Sole Proprietor.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
Sh. Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member
For Complainant Sh. Sukhpreet Singh inperson
For Opposite Party No. 1 Sh. Nitin Sharma Advocate
For Opposite Party No. 2 Exparte.
For Opposite Party No. 3 Exparte.
ORDERS:
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The complainant Sukhpreet Singh has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act Section 12 and 13 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant had got purchased one mobile Set make REDMI 6 PRO having IMEI No. 868898044667218 online from M.I. Store (through internet) for a sum of Rs. 9,999/- vide invoice No. 7460558 dated 14.8.2019 from the opposite party No.1. After about 5/6 days back the complainant had got received the above said mobile phone from Bus Stand Patti District tarn Taran after making the above said payment in cash. After about 15 days, there was some technical defect in the above said mobile phone, but at that time, the complainant was under the impression that it will be normal and the complainant had got restarted the above said mobile phone by way of pressing the on/off switch of above said mobile phone. After elapse of span of about 15 days, the above said defect again came in to the above said mobile phone of the complainant and on this the complainant went to service centre i.e. opposite party No. 2 where the concerned authority had got installed software of the above said mobile phone of the complainant twice and on repeat of same problem the complainant again went to the opposite party No. 2 where the concerned authority had got installed a new Software again and stated that there is defect in the new update and none of the defect is in the mobile phone. Due to the non-removal of defect from the above said mobile phone of the complainant, the complainant had again gone to the service centre i.e. opposite party No. 2 where the concerned authority had asked the complainant to come again after seven days and they would change the display of complainant. Despite of change of display the same problem again came to the mobile phone of the complainant and the opposite party no. 2 has got installed software again. Whenever the same problem came in the mobile phone of the complainant, the complainant had tried to make contact to the customer care of MI Company and the concerned employee had stated that to go to MI centre thereafter the complainant had got submitted his mobile phone to the opposite party No. 2 for its testing and at that time the office of opposite party No. 2 did not issue any job sheet and stated that we does not possess mother board and therefore the complainant has to go to Amritsar. Due to constant same problem came in the above said mobile phone to MI service centre Amritsar opposite party no. 3 where the concerned office had got change the mother board of the mobile phone of the complainant but despite of this fact the same problem/ defect came in the mobile phone of the complainant. After some time, the above said mobile was started hanging the same as well as the defect of vibration was also come in the above said mobile and the complainant requested the opposite party to hand over his mobile handset to the complainant after removing the defect or in the alternative the new sealed/ pocket mobile handset of the same value may be given to the complainant but they did not pay any heed to it, rather the opposite party has flatly, finally straightway refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant had tried to make contact with the opposite parties through e-mail dated 18.10.2019, 29th January 2020 and 16th March 2020 but no effective response was given by the opposite parties. Due to non-considering/ accepting the request of the complainant he has suffered a huge mental loss and he has also suffered mental harassment, pain and agony. There is negligence in the service of the opposite parties. The complainant has prayed that a strict / appropriate action may kindly be taken against the opposite parties and directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to remove the defect of hanging/ black screen of the mobile set of the complainant or in the alternative to supply the new mobile set to the complainant of the same value and model etc. and to pay the damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- be also awarded in favour of complainant and against the opposite parties. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, Photostat copy of invoice / Bill No. 7460558 dated 14.8.2019 Ex. C-2, Photostat copy of e-mail dated 18.10.2019 Ex. C-3, Photostat copy of e-mail dated 29.10.2020 Ex. C-4, Photostat coy of e-mail dated 16.3.2020 Ex. C-5, Photostat copy of Adhar Card Ex. C-6.
2 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties.
3 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party No. 2 but no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and consequently, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 7.9.2020. Similarly notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party No. 3 but no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 3 and consequently, the opposite party No. 3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.11.2020.
4 The opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version by alleging that opposite party No. 1 is engaged in the marketing, sale and service inter alia of mobile phones in India under the brands ‘Mi’ and ‘Xiaomi’. The opposite party No.2 is an authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No. 3 is also an authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1. The complainant Mr. Sukhpreet Singh has purchased a handset sold under the Mi brand namely Redmi Note 6 Pro on August 14, 2019 for Rs. 9,999/- bearing IMEI No. 868898044667218. All Mi and Xiaomi brand mobile phones within India are sold under a standard set of warranty terms and conditions. A copy of the same warranty terms as available at the opposite party No. 1’s website http:/www.mi.com/in/service/ is provided. Said warranty terms are specific and limited warranty terms offered in connection with all Mi and Xiaomi brand phones sold within India, including the Product purchased by and delivered to the complainant. On October 04, 2019 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 i.e. authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1 with issues related to the product i.e. ‘Speaker Low Sound in Non Calling State’. The complainant informed the technician of the authroised 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 examination and reviewing the product at the service centre, the defects related to the product was duly repaired for free of cost by the technicians of the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1 as per the standard applicable warranty conditions i.e. the speakers were replaced free of cost and the product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition as can be ascertained from service job sheet No. WXIN1910040004742. On November 6, 2019 the complainant again approached the opposite party No. 2 i.e. authorized service centre of the 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 i.e. ‘Display Black Screen’ . The service engineer duly recorded the issue and requested the complainant to wait until the examination/ inspection is completed. After examination and reviewing the product at the service centre, the defect related to the product was duly repaired for free of cost by the technicians of the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1 as per the standard applicable warranty condition i.e. by replacing the front Display Module and the Product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition as can be ascertained from service job sheet No. WXIN1911060001244. On January 09, 2020 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 i.e. authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1 with issues related to the product i.e. sometime ‘display blank issue’. The complainant informed the technician of the authroised 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 examination and reviewing the product at the service centre, the defects related to the product was duly repaired for free of cost by the technicians of the authroised service centre of the opposite party No. 1 as per the standard applicable warrant conditions i.e. by replacing the main board of the phone and the product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition as can be ascertained from the service job sheet No. WXIN2001090000180. On February 17, 2020 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 i.e. authorized service centre of the 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 i.e. ‘display flickering issue’. The service engineer duly recorded the issue and requested the complainant to wait until the examination/ inspection is complete. After examining and reviewing the product at the service centre, the defects related to the product was duly repaired for free of cost by the technicians of the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1 as per the standard applicable warranty conditions and the product was duly returned to the complainant in proper working condition as can be ascertain from service job sheet No. WXIN2002170001128. The opposite party No. 1 subsequently received a copy of present complaint, alleging that (i) The opposite party has exhibited deficiency of service and have caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant (ii) The complainant is therefore, entitled to receive free of cost repair/ replacement associated with the product alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. The complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous, concocted and has been field unnecessarily harass the opposite party No.1. Other than mere allegation the complainant has not in any way proved or demonstrated that the product is presently suffering from a defect and such defect is a manufacturing defect. In the absence of any evidence that (i) the product purchased by the complainant is presently in a defective state, (ii) that such defect is a manufacturing defect and (iii) that the product was not repaired by the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1. On failure to produce document and establish that there is a cause of action against the opposite party No. 1, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further, it is to be noted from the service record that the complainant had subjected the product to a lot of wear and tear and as such the signs of the rough handling of the complainant were visible right from the first visit to the service centre. The complainant has approached the authorized service centre of opposite party No. 1 on four occasions wherein the handset was duly repaired and returned to the complainant in proper working condition in accordance with the warranty terms applicable to the product. Thereafter, the complainant accepted the handset without any issue on all occasions. The complainant has thereafter never approached again to any of the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1 for any issue occurring in the handset. Therefore, it is clear that the handset is not having manufacturing defect and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. Additionally the complainant has infact not presented any evidence (admissible or otherwise) to demonstrate that the alleged defects in the present complaint are a consequence of a manufacturing defects in the product and not a consequence of use or mishandling by the complainant. The complainant further alleges that the complainant approached the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1 regarding the defects in product and the product was not repaired in a proper manner and the defects in the product are still persisting which is false, frivolous, concocted as the product was repaired in the complete manner and delivered to complainant in proper working condition on all occasions as can be ascertained from Annexure D, F, H & J of this reply. The complainant has not provided any evidence to prove or demonstrate manufacturing defects in the product. Mere defects in the product cannot be held against the opposite party No. 1 and the complainant is required to prove manufacturing defects in the product. Applying the established precedent set out in the above cases, it is clear that since the limited warranty associated with the product is restricted to repair or replacement of the defective part at the discretion of the opposite party No.1. The complainant is not entitled to any other remedy which is not stated in the warranty terms. If any defect within a product is capable of being rectified by repair or by replacement of the defective part, such rectification or replacement by the opposite party No. 1 is entirely sufficient and consistent with the stated warranty obligations, as well as with established principles of consumer protection law in India. The complainant is thereby not entitled to any relief other than repair or replacement is at the discretion of the opposite party No. 1. There is accordingly no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No. 1 or any of its agent. The complainant may be directed to approach the authorized service centre of opposite party NO. 1 for any further assistance that the complainant may require as per warranty terms and condition applicable to the product in question and / or this complaint may be dismissed in limni for lack of any basis. The authroised service centre of the opposite party No. 1 has repaired the product of the complainant in a complete manner on all occasions. Further the complainant has not proved any evidence to prove manufacturing defects in the product. The complainant is unnecessarily harassing the opposite party No. 1 by filing this frivolous concocted and misleading complaint. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed and to award costs of the litigation to the opposite party No. 1. The complainant maybe directed to produce the device for examination and inspection before this commission or to provide the technical examination report to prove manufacturing defect in the product as required under section 38(1)(c) of the Act. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party No. 1 has placed on rcord Limited Warranty Statement Ex. OP1/A, Handset Limited Warnaty Ex. OP1/B. Service Record Ex. OP1/C, Ex. OP1/D, Inspection Sheet Ex. OP1E, Service Record Ex. OP1/F, Inspection Sheet Ex. OP1/G, Ex. OP1/H, Ex. OP1/J, service Record Ex. OP1/I .
5 We have heard the complainant and Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 and have carefully gone through the record.
6 In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the mobile in question of MI Company. The case of the complainant is that after 15 days from the purchase of mobile in question, there was some technical defect in the handset and it is also case of the complainant that his mobile in question was facing problems many times and the complainant approached the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 i.e. service centres of the opposite party No. 1 and this fact has also been admitted by the opposite party No. 1 in its reply. In para No. 6 of the written version, it is stated by the opposite party No. 1 admitted that on 4.10.2019 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 with the issues related to product i.e. ‘Speaker Low Sound in Non Calling State’ The opposite party No. 1 has placed on record inspection record Annexure ‘C’. It is admitted by the opposite party No. 1 that product was duly repaired free of costs by the technicians of the authorized opposite party No. 1 and has placed on record copy of Job Sheet Annexure D. It is also admitted by the opposite party No. 1 that on 6.11.2019 the complainant again approached the opposite party No. 2 with issues ‘Display Black Screen’ related to product and has placed on record inspection record Annexure E. It is also admitted by the opposite party No. 1 that the product was duly repaired free of cost and has also placed on record Job sheet Annexure F. It is also admitted by the opposite party No. 1 that on 9.1.2020 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 with issue related to the product i.e. ‘sometime display blank issue’ and has placed on record inspection record Annexure G. it is also admitted by the opposite party No. 1 that the defects related to the product was duly repaired free of cost and has submitted Job sheet as Annexure H. It is also admitted by the opposite party No. 1 that on 17.2.2020 the complainant approached the respondent No. 3 with the issue related to the product i.e. ‘Display Flickering issue’ and has placed on record inspection record Annexure ‘I’ and it is also admitted by the opposite party No. 1 that defects related to the product was duly repaired free of costs and has placed on record job sheet Annexure J. It all shows that the mobile of the complainant is facing problems from its very beginning. The complainant has also placed on record emails dated 18.10.2019 Ex. C-3, Email dated 29.1.2020 Ex. C-4, Email dated 16.3.2020 Ex. C-5, to the opposite party. The mobile in question is giving the problem of hanging. As per stand taken by the opposite party No. 1 it is proved that many times mobile has been repaired by the opposite parties. The record shows that the complainant has purchased the mobile in question on 14.8.2019 and the mobile was suffering defects from the very beginning for its purchase and the mobile was repaired many times as mentioned above.. It all shows that there is some inherit defect in the mobile in question. The perusal of record shows that defect in the mobile in question occurred within one year from purchase of mobile in question. The entire record produced by the opposite party No. 1 show that the most time the mobile remain with the service centre of the opposite parties. The defect in the mobile in question occurred within one year i.e. within warranty period and if any defect occurred during the warranty period the same is to be replaced. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that
“failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hindustan Motors Limited and Anr. Vs. N.Shiva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 654 has held that
“when any company had stopped manufacturing the particular model, under those circumstances, there is no other way except to refund of money alongwith interest, compensation and cost.”
In the instant case, the mobile in question started giving troubles within warranty period. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Shirish Vs. C.S.Rahalkar (Dr) in 2010(3) CLT page 209 has held that
“the respondent had paid Rs.32,500/- for an original Amtrex air –conditioner and not an assembled air-conditioner. The State Commission has rightly held the petitioner guilty of Unfair Trade Practice as defined under section 2(1) (i) ® of the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the same.”
7 The opposite party No. 1 has moved an application to direct the complainant to produce the alleged defective product before this Commission for examination. It is pertinent to mention here that the mobile hand set was repaired by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 many times and the opposite parties could have examined the hand set at that time. Hence at this stage, there is no need to prove or demonstrate that the product is suffering from any manufacturing defect. Accordingly the application stands disposed of.
8 In view of above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile in question with same make and model or to refund the price of the mobile in question. The complainant will hand over the mobile set in question and its charger to the opposite parties. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 3,500/- ( Rs. Three thousand and five hundred only only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony from the opposite parties. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @9% per annum, on the awarded amount from the date of complaint till its realisation. All the miscellaneous applications pending if any, stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
11.08.2021
