Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/334/2015

Mukul Singal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiomi Inc. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

19 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	334 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	25.6.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	9.3.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Mukul Singal S/o Sh. Nirmal Singal r/o 516 Sector 18B, Chandigarh.

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1. Xiomi Inc. 68 Qinghe Middle Street, Haidian District Beijing China through its Managing Director/authorized signatory.
2. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. Vaishnavi Summit, No.6/B 7^th Main 80 feet road 3^rd Block Koramangala, Bangalore 560034 through its Managing Director/auhtorized signatory.
3. Vinesh Services SCO No. 189-190 Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

  2^nd address.

  Vignesh Services SCO No. 32, First floor, Sector 31D, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

4.    WS retail services Pvt. Ltd. Ozone Manay Tech park, No.56/18, B Block 9^th floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore 560068, Karnatka through its Managing Director.

….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv.

 

For OP No.2&4           :     Sh. Amit Mahajan, Adv.

OP No.1&3               :     Exparte.     

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

          As per the case, the complainant purchased a mobile Mi3 (matalic grey) through online purchase from the website of  Opposite Party No.2 on 26.8.2014, which was delivered by Opposite Party No.4  alongwith an invoice and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.13,999/- towards the price of the handset. The handset carried warranty of one year. It is alleged that the said handset started giving problem regarding display in the month of April and called at XIaomi’s customer care No. numerous time and even visited the service centre but his problem was not resolved. Thereafter the complainant sent email Annexure C-3 to the customer care and they advised to visit the service centre again. Accordingly the complainant again visited the service centre but they refused to repair the handset on the ground that parts are not available. Thereafter the mobile stopped abruptly on 18.5.2015. The complainant immediately approached Opposite Party No.3 i.e. the service centre of Opposite Party No.1 anddeposited the handset with it on 18.5.2015 which issued job sheet Annexure C-4.  Thereafter, the complainant time and again visited the service centre but it was only on 2.6.2015 he was told by the service centre that parts for replacement are not available and as such the handset is not repairable. It is further alleged that Opposite Party No.3 after partially repairing it returned the mobile which again started giving same problem, in the end Opposite Party No.3 told that its motherboard needs replacement but the same is not available and it would take time. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties willfully tried to delay the matter so as to pass the warranty period till 25.8.2015. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 14.08.2015.

 

3.     Opposite Party  No.2 in its reply stated that  it had not sold the handset in question to the complainant nor it had any role in the sale or purchase of concerned product in question and there is no contractual obligation binding between the complainant and the answering Opposite Party. Further stated that even Opposite Party No.2 is neither manufacturer of any product nor provides any platform to the end customers for purchases. The complainant appears to be aggrieved with marketplace platform flipkart.com which is owned and operated by a separate entity incorporated under the companies Act under the name of flipkart internet pvt. Ltd. which is distinct and separate from Opposite Party No.2. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

4.     Opposite Party No. 4 in its reply stated that it is carrying on business of sale of goods manufactured/produced by other. The Opposite Party NO.4 is a registered seller on the website of flipkart.com and sells products of other through the website and it is not engaged in selling of any goods manufactured or produced by its own. The answering Opposite Party is neither the manufacturer of the product nor the service centre of the manufacturer hence no cause of action arose against it. It is averred that  the duty to remove the defect in the handset was of the manufacturer and service centre  and there is no role of Opposite Party No.4. Rest of the allegations have  been denied being wrong.
5.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant, ld. Counsel for Opposite Parties No.2&4 and have also perused the record.

 

 

7.     Opposite Parties No.1 i.e. the manufacturer of the mobile in question & 3 i.e. the authorized service centre  of Opposite Party No.1 chose not to appear before this Forum and were proceeded exparte vide order dated 14.08.2015. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted.  Moreover their absence shows that they have nothing to say against the allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint.

 

8.     Undoubtedly the complainant purchased Mi3(metallic grey)  mobile worth Rs.13,999/- through online from the website of flipkart, which was delivered to him by Opposite Party No.4 the dealer of the manufacturer Opposite Party No.1 and issued bill Annexure C-1. The grouse of the complainant is that the said mobile started giving problem regarding display within the warranty period. It is evident from Annexure C-3 at page 10 the email sent by the complainant to the customer care that the complainant contacted the customer care several times and even visited the service centre twice  but the problem in the mobile could not be resolved. It is further evident from Annexure C-3 that the customer care vide their email dated 26.4.2015 again advised him to visit their service centre. The plea of the complainant is that he accordingly visited the Opposite Party No.3 the service centre of Opposite Party No.1 on 18.5.2014 and deposited the mobile and he was issued job sheet Annexure C-4. Thereafter he visited the service centre number of times and ultimately he was told that the parts and replacement are not available and the mobile is thus not repairable and returned the same to the complainant after partially repairing the same. But the problem persisted with mobile and the service centre told that the mother board is required replacement but the same is not available.

        Since none had come present on behalf of OPs No. 1&3 to rebut these contentions of the complainant, which are supported with duly sworn affidavit of the complainant, we are left with no alternative but to believe the same to be true. A thorough examine of the job sheet Aannexure C-4 divulge  that the handset was having problem of internal display. It has been clearly mentioned in the said job sheet that the physical status of the mobile was in good condition. Meaning thereby there is no external damage to it and it had internal display problem only, which is duly covered under the warranty.  But the Opposite Parties No.1,3 and 4 despite knowing the fact that the handset is under warranty neither removed the defect therein nor replaced the same with a new one but with a malafide intention lingered on the matter so as to exhaust the period of warranty. We feel that if OPs No.1,3 and 4 had no parts or replacement available they should have refunded the price of the mobile to the complainant rather than to bother him to visit the service centre again and again. Despite paying a hefty amount towards the price of the mobile the complainant was left at the mercy of Opposite Parties No.1,3 and 4 who not only failed to redress the grievance of the complainant but also absented themselves (Opposite Party NO.1&3) to counter the allegation leveled by the complainant vide present complaint. Hence this act and omission of Opposite Party No.1, 3 and 4 amounts to deficiency in rendering service.   However, no case is made out against Opposite Party No.2 as it is neither the dealer nor the manufacturer of the mobile but it is only a platform through which the mobile in question was sold. Hence the complaint against it, is dismissed.

9.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Parties  No. 1,3 and 4 and they are jointly & severally directed as under:-

        

a]  To refund Rs.13,999/- being the cost of the mobile handset;

 

b]  To pay Rs.8,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

C]  To pay Rs.4,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1,3 and 4 within 45 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the above awarded amount at (a) and (b) at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

9.3.2016

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER