Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1100/2019

Hunar Sehgal - Complainant(s)

Versus

XIOMI Technology India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

16 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1100/2019
Date of Institution	:	06/12/2019
Date of Decision	:	16/04/2021

 

Hunar Sehgal s/o Sh. N.K. Sehgal r/o #495, Sector 61, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. XIOMI Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Orchid Block-E, Ground Floor, Embassy Tech Village, Marathahalli, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560103 through its Managing Director.
2. Konde Products & Services Pvt. Ltd., Khasra No.1/24, 25, 3/1/1 of Village Hassanpuran 14/19/2/2, 20, 21/1, 22/1, 15/15/2, 16, 17, 25 of village Darbaripur Gurgaon, Haryana-122004 through its Managing Director.
3. QDIGI Services Limited, SCO No.2471-2472, First Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Incharge Sh. Lakhwinder Singh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Atul Goyal, Counsel for OP-1
	:	OPs 2 & 3 ex-parte

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The long and short of the allegations are, on 9.12.2018, the complainant online purchased a POCO F1 mobile phone from OP-1 and paid ₹17,817/-. The said mobile carried warranty of one year. However, the complainant started facing various problems viz. Auto power off, WiFi not connecting, heating issue etc.  His mother visited OP-3 for repairs and she was informed, display/touch of the mobile is damaged and demand of ₹6,016.82 was raised. Complainant’s mother resisted why the mobile phone is not getting repaired within warranty for issues raised in the job sheet.  However, OP-3 refused to repair the mobile set, charged ₹118/- and returned the same to her.  The complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.9.2019 to the OPs after which he received a call from the customer care informing his mobile will be replaced with a brand new one. The complainant and his mother visited the service centre a number of times, but, the OPs dilly-dallied the matter. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OPs either to replace the handset with a new one or to refund the invoice amount thereof i.e. ₹17,817/- alongwith compensation of ₹30,000/- and ₹7,700/- as litigation expenses.
2.     OP-1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and admitted the facts with regard to sale of the handset and subsequent visit of the complainant for its repair.  However, maintained the product was rendered out of warranty due to damage occurred to the handset of the complainant i.e. customer induced damage.  Averred, the handset cannot be treated under warranty and, therefore, cannot be repaired free of cost under the provisions of warranty.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     OP-2 did not appear despite service of publication dated 8.2.2021 in the newspaper Daily Charhdikala, Patiala. Therefore, vide order dated 10.3.2021, OP-2 was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.
4.     Registered notice was sent to OP-3 on 17.12.2019 which was presumed to have been served.  Since none appeared on behalf of OP-3, therefore, vide order dated 10.2.2020, it was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.
5.     Rejoinder was filed by the complainant and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated. Maintained, complainant had only sought rectification of (i) auto power off (ii) Wi-Fi not working and (iii) heating issue and did not report or seek replacement of touch panel. 
6.     Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
8.     Per pleadings of the parties, facts with regard to sale of the mobile phone in question and visit of the complainant for its repairs have not been disputed at all. Rather the sole attack/defence by OP-1 is since the mobile phone was found to be physically damaged, therefore, the same was not covered under the warranty terms and conditions and the complainant was required to pay for the same.  In this regard OP-1 relied upon the photographs (Annexure A) to prove the extent of physical damage and deny its liability.
9.     We have perused the said photographs  (Annexure A) and are of the opinion, it shows nothing but only a minuscule crack of the glass/screen which could be even over the tempered glass/screen guard generally affixed by the users for the extra protection and longevity of their handsets. 
10.     Admittedly, as per the service record (Annexure C-2) dated 17.8.2019, the complainant had gone to OP-3 with the complaints of auto power off, Wi-Fi not working and heating issue in the mobile handset in question and not for replacement of the touch panel. OP-3 instead of resolving the aforementioned issues, tyrannically raised a demand of ₹6016.82 by taking shelter of display damaged. In such circumstances, it was imperative for OP-3 to appear before this Commission, file its written reply and evidence and controvert the allegations of the complainant. However, OP-3 chose not to appear before this Commission and allowed itself to be proceeded ex-parte. Otherwise also, from naked eye, the scratch in the mobile phone in question as per Annexure A is so small/minuscule that the same cannot be termed as damaged or violated the warranty terms and conditions.
11.     Needless to repeat it again, complainant had not gone to the OPs for replacement of the screen, but, with problems of auto power off,
    Wi-Fi not working and heating issue in the mobile handset in question. How such a small scratch led to aforementioned complaints is beyond comprehension? In our considered opinion, mobile set in question cannot be termed as physically damaged and the OPs were duty bound to repair the same.  Hence, the act of the OPs in not repairing the mobile handset in question and demanding ₹6016.82 from the complainant for repair of the same certainly tantamounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
12.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to immediately refund the invoice price of the mobile phone in question i.e. ₹17,817/- to the complainant upon return of the same by the complainant.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

13.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/04/2021	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President