Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/810/2016

Sahil Talwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi Exclusive Chandigarh. - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Kumar

12 Jun 2017

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	810 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	14.9.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	12.6.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Sahil Talwar aged 27 years s/o late Sh. Yogesh Talwar r/o House No.354, Sector 15, Panchkula.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.     Xiaomi Exclusive Chandigarh SCO No.2471-2472, First floor Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

2.     Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited 5^th FLR, Delta BLK Embassy Tech SQ, Marathahalli- Sarajpur outer Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout Kadubeesanahalli, Bengaluru, Karnatka 560103 thorugh its Managing Head.

 

3.     Amazon India Regd. Office Brigade Gateway 8^th floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwararam (w) Bangalore 560055 (Karnataka)  India, through its Managing Director.

 

4.     E-Mobiles, Anjaneya Infrastructure Project Nos. 38 and 39, Soukya Road, KacherAKANAHALLI, Hoskote Taluka, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore 560067, Karnatka, India through its Managing Director/Director/General Manager. 

 

… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  

 

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                  PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA          MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Varun Bhardwaj, Adv.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv.
For OP NO.2	:	Sh. Vipula Sharma, Adv.
For OP No.3	:	Sh. Inderjit Singh, Adv.

For OP No.4         :       Ex-parte

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased one handset Redmi 2 Prime 4G  XOOOEUEA41 from the website of OP No.3 for Rs.6999/- on 20.9.2015 and gifted the same to his cousin. It is pleaded that the said handset with a short span of time started giving problem. The complainant approached OP No.1 for repair of the handset who replaced the mother of the LCD/screen display.  But to the utter dismay of the complainant the handset again gave same problem  the OP No.2 again replaced its motherboard. Even the thereafter the handset in question again started giving problem  and the complainant took the matter with Xioami India but no avail. Ultimately the complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs  but to no effect. . Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite party No.4 despite service, therefore, its proceeded ex-parte.

3.           Opposite Party No.1 in its reply while admitting the factual aspect of the case stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the complainant has been using the duly repaired mobile since 15.5.2016 till date however, with a ulterior motive file the instant complaint.  It has been admitted by OP No.1 that there was some problem with the handset in question and the same was repaired on 31.3.2016 , 11.4.2016 and on 2.5.2016, and the complainant received the handset after successful repair and as such no cause of action has arisen to him against the OP No.1. . Denying all other allegations and stating 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.                        OP No.2 in its reply stated that its authorized service centre had repaired the handset in question as per warranty period on all the three occasions the complainant approached to it. It is asserted that there is no manufacturing defect in the handset in question. The complainant has produced nothing on record that the handset in question is having manufacturing defect.  As such there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP.  Denying all the allegation leveled in the complaint it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed against the answering OP.

5.                        OP No.3 in its reply stated that it neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. The sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. The answering OP is neither responsible for the products that are listed on the website by various third party sellers, nor does it intervene or influence any customers in any manner.  As such the OP No.3 has no role to play in the dispute in question. Pleading no deficiency on its part OP No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

 

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

 

8.          It is evident from Annexure A-1 coupled with affidavit of the complainant that he purchased a mobile handset Redmi 2 Prime 4G from OPs for Rs.6999/- with one year warranty. Annexure A2, A-3 and A-6 are the job sheets. Annexure A-4  is legal notice sent by the complainant to the OPs. Stand taken by OPs No.1&2 is that as and when the handset in question was handed over for repair the same was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. Therefore, no cause of action arose against them.

 

9.          OP No.3 in its reply has stated that it is neither seller nor the service provider and being merely an online market place cannot be held liable for deficiency in service.

 

10.        Perusal of various job sheets and admission on the part of the OPs No.1&2 for the fact of repair of handset in question thrice and replacement of the mother board reveals that the quality of the product in question is of sub-standard.  It also substantiate the fact of improper services provided by the service centre as the problem was re-occurring time and again. It is only  due to a sub-standard product and improper service provided by the OPs, the complainant was forced to move to the service centre for repair of the handset in question time and again and ultimately to this Forum for justice.

 

     So far as the question of innocence of OP No.3 is concerned it is only a platform who connects the consumers with various sellers to buy  the product of their choice. The act of OP No.3 for connecting consumer with various sellers cannot be termed as charity and it is considered service only. Therefore, the act of OPs for selling poor quality product and later on non-providing proper service amounts to deficiency in service, which caused immense mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

 

11.        In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed  to:-

a)              To refund Rs.6,999/- to the complainant being price of the product in question.

[b]  To make payment of 2000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

 

[c]  To make payment of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

 

12.        The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.[a] & [b] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

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

 

Announced

12.6.2017               

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

 PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER