Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/748/2015

Chetan Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

XIOMI - Opp.Party(s)

Savinder Singh Gill

01 Jun 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/748/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	05/11/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	01/06/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Chetan Rai son of Sh.Balwant Rai, R/o H.No.1346, Sector 23, Chandigarh.

 …………… Complainant.

Vs

 

[1]  XIOMI Inc., 68 Qinghe Middle Street, Haidian District, Beijing, China, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory [Deleted vide order dated 21.01.2016].

 

[2]  Flipkart India Pvt. Limited, 42/1 & 43, Kacherakanahalli Village, Jadigahalli Hobli, Hoskote Tq, Bengaluru- 560067, Karnataka, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

 

[3]  WS Retail Services Pvt. Limited, 71/1, Opposite BESCOM Office, MS Ramaiah Main Road, Gokula, SBM Colony, Mathikere, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560054, through its Director/ Authorized Signatory.

 

[4]  Vignesh Services, SCO No. 189-190, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory [Deleted vide order dated 21.04.2016].

 

……………  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    DR. MANJIT SINGH                PRESIDENT

SMT.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA         MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Deleted
For OP Nos.2 & 3	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate.
For OP No.4	:	Deleted.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          The facts germane to this Consumer Complaint are these. The Complainant had purchased one Xiaomi REDMI 2 (White Colour) mobile handset through online shopping from Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.2) for Rs.6,999/- on 26.03.2015. It has been alleged that right from the day one, the Complainant experienced problems of overheating, battery drainage, auto switch off etc. with the aforesaid handset. Accordingly, the same was deposited with the Service Centre (OP No.4) in early Sept. 2015 and thereafter, on 25.09.2015, for carrying out necessary repairs, but the defects in the handset could not be rectified despite keeping the handset for a number of days. 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. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the Complainant, on the Complaint itself, giving up Opposite Parties No.1 and 4, the names of Opposite Parties No.1 & 4 were was ordered to be deleted from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 21.01.2016 and 21.4.2016 respectively.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has pleaded that it is merely an online market place and is neither the manufacturer nor the Seller of the mobile handset in question, hence by no stretch of imagination it is liable for any grievance whatsoever raised by the Complainant. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.3 in its reply has pleaded that it is merely a registered reseller with website www.flipkart.com where several buyers and sellers come and do business and that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the answering Opposite Party. Further, it is neither the manufacturer nor its Service Centre and hence it is not liable for any complaint whatsoever raised by the Complainant. It has been asserted that the answering Opposite Party provides 30 days replacement warranty to its customers, during which period the Complainant did not report an issue about the problem with the product. It was the liability of the Manufacturer or its Service Centre to provide the after sale services and were only liable for any fault in the handset. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      The Complainant also filed separate rejoinders to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have been controverted.

 

6.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

7.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 

 

8.      It is worthwhile to note that it was the liability of the Manufacturer or its Service Centre to provide the after sale services and were only liable for any fault in the handset purchased by the Complainant. Incidentally, the Complainant had given up his claim against the Manufacturer (Opposite Party No.1) as well as its Authorized Service Centre (Opposite Party No.4). As a sequel thereto, their names were deleted from the array of Opposite Parties. In our concerted opinion, in the absence of these Opposite Parties, we cannot grant the relief prayed for by the Complainant, since it is the manufacturer or it’s Service Centre who are liable for any complaint/concern raised by the Complainant regarding the product.

 

9.      Significantly, Opposite Party No.2 is merely an online market place and is neither the manufacturer nor the Seller of the mobile handset in question, hence it cannot remotely be held responsible for the alleged grievance raised by the Complainant. Furthermore, Opposite Party No.3 being a registered reseller with website www.flipkart.com has no privity of contract with the Complainant. Also, Opposite Party No.3 is neither the manufacturer nor its Service Centre hence by any stretch of imagination it cannot be held liable for deficiency in service as alleged by the any Complainant. Admittedly, Opposite Party No.3 had provided 30 days replacement warranty to the Complainant, during which period he failed to report his concern regarding the product. In these set of circumstances, we are not inclined to pass any orders qua Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 and the Complaint against deserves to be dismissed.   

 

10.      For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

11.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01^st June, 2016                                         

Sd/-

(DR.MANJIT SINGH)

PRESIDENT

                                               

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

             

              Sd/-                 

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                   

“Dutt”