Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/86/2017

Atul Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Paras Money Goyal, Adv.

19 Apr 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	:	86 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	10.04.2017
Date of Decision	:	19.04.2017

Atul Arora s/o Late Sh.S.P.Arora, R/o H.No.3285, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.

…Appellant/Complainant

 

V e r s u s

1. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., 8^th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay, Marathahalli-Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore-Karnataka, India-560103.

2^nd Address:-

Xizami Logistics, C/o DHL Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.193-197, 254-258, 137, 248-249, Jigani Link Road, Bommasandra, Industrial Area, Bangalore-562106, Karnataka.

2. TVS Electronics Ltd., C/o DHL, 4^th Floor, Plot No.193-197 and 254-258, 137 & 248-249, Jigani Link Road, Bommasandra, Industrial Area, Bangalore 562106 through its Managing Director.
3. Authorised Exclusive Service Centre of MI, HCL, Services Ltd., SCO No.2471-72, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Manager. 

               ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

 

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                This appeal is directed against an order dated 01.03.2017, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short the Forum only) vide which, it disposed of, the consumer complaint bearing No.602 of 2016, filed by the complainant (now appellant), ordering the respondents to replace the mobile handset, in dispute, purchased by him (appellant), with a new one. At the same time, it was also held by the Forum that since it is evident on record that vide e-mail dated 8.8.2016 (Ann.C-3 at Page 19), the respondents had sought 10 days’ time to resolve the matter, but the appellant instead of waiting for the same, filed the present complaint on 16.8.2016, as such, there is no deficiency in providing service, on the part of the respondents. This appeal has been filed by the appellant stating that in ordering replacement of the mobile handset, the Forum has committed an error. Rather, refund of the amount paid, should have been ordered, in favour of the appellant.      

2.         The Forum has noted down following facts, qua the case of the appellant: -

“As per the case, the complainant, a Group-A Officer, purchased Xiaomi MI Max mobile handset for Rs.14,999/- by placing an Online order with OP No.1 on 3.8.2016 and the same was delivered to the complainant on 5.8.2016   (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that after starting the handset, the complainant noticed WiFi problem in it and then approached the authorised Service Centre/OP No.3 on 8.8.2016.  The OP No.3 reported the fault description as Wi-Fi Connection Fault and tried to rectify it, but failed and as such returned the handset to the complainant with advise to contact Customer Care Centre with an assurance that the handset will be replaced.  It is averred that the complainant contacted the Customer Care Centre of the Opposite Parties, whereupon the representative of the OPs visited the complainant, but refused to replace the handset.  It is submitted that the complainant with regard to his grievance also wrote a mail on 8.8.2016 to the Opposite Parties, but there was no positive response (Ann.C-3).  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.”

3.         Upon notice, separate replies were filed by opposite parties no.1 and 3. However, since despite deemed service, none put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.2, as such, it was proceeded against exparte by the Forum, vide order dated 22.09.2016.
4.         Respondent no.1, specifically stated that after noting defect in the mobile handset, offer was made to the appellant, to settle the dispute by replacing the same, with a new one, but he refused to do so. It was averred that neither there was any deficiency in providing service on the part of respondent no.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.
5.         Respondent no.3, specifically stated that the mobile handset was returned to the appellant on 08.08.2016, when the defect therein i.e. ‘dead on arrival’ was indicated. The appellant was directed to take up the matter with respondent no.1, for its replacement, however, he failed to do so. It was averred that neither there was any deficiency in providing service on the part of respondent no.3, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.
6.         The contesting parties led evidence, in support of their case, before the Forum.
7.         The Forum on perusal of the evidence on record and pleadings of the contesting parties, found as a matter of fact that the mobile handset purchased by the appellant, online, was delivered to him on 05.08.2016. Malfunctioning was reported in the said mobile handset on 08.08.2016. On getting the complaint, respondent no.1 offered replacement of the mobile handset, with a new one. However, without giving any breathing time to the respondents, this complaint was filed on 16.08.2016. During proceedings before the Forum, offer made by respondent no.1 to replace mobile handset was also not accepted by the appellant. On 08.08.2016, the respondents had sought ten days’ time, through email Annexure C-3, at page 19 of the Forum file, to settle the issue. However, that much time was not granted by the appellant and the complaint was filed immediately, thereafter, as referred to above.
8.         In view of above facts, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Forum i.e. directing the respondents to replace the defective mobile handset, with a new one, of the same configuration or with another mobile handset of higher specifications, if need be, on payment of some additional amount, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order impugned, is perfectly justified. Once an offer has been made by the respondents, to replace the defective mobile handset with a new one, immediately, when defect was indicated therein, within a short span of time, from the date of sale, it is not necessary to order refund of amount paid, towards cost thereof. Thus, no ground, whatsoever, is made out by the appellant, to persuade this Commission, to reverse findings of the Forum.
9.         No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the appellant.
10.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.
11.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
12.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

19.04.2017

 

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Rg