Madhu Sudhan v. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.

SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section

12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for an order against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) to refund Rs.6,999/- along with interest at 9% p.a., compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- cost on the allegations of deficiency in service.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows: On 24.03.2015 complainant purchased Xiaomi Redmi-2 mobile handset bearing IMEI No.866392020442368 by paying a sum of Rs.6,999/-. On 08.10.2015 there was no display, but the handset rings and vibrates whenever the call is made. Complainant tried reaching service centre on working day and Complaint No.1740/2015 during the working hours at least forty times, but the line was busy. Complainant personally approached the service centre. The handset was examined by one Ms.Heena at service centre and she confirmed that display panel alone is at fault and same would be replaced on chargeable basis, due to small crack on display which happened within 15 days of purchase. Complainant on the force of OP accepted to get the display panel replaced by paying a sum of Rs.2,550/- on chargeable basis. On 12.10.2015 complainant received a call from the service centre stating that even the system board needs to be replaced and again on chargeable basis, though unit is under warranty and also they insisted to purchase a new telephone instead of getting it repaired. Complainant due to lack of satisfaction with the service centre sent a mail stating the said incident happened after he handover the phone to the service centre and if he did not get legitimate service he will approach the consumer forum, but again the complainant was directed to take the phone to service centre. Inspite of repeated request OP neither give appropriate service nor refund the amount. Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances, he is advised to file this complaint against OP for appropriate relief.

3. On appearance OP-1 filed version contending that OP is a Company incorporated under Companies Act 2013 having its principal office at Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. OP-1 is engaged in marketing, sale and service inter alia of mobile phones in India under the brands Mi and Xiaomi. OP-2 is an e-commerce Company and the authorized online retail service partner of OP-1. OP-3 is authorised Complaint No.1740/2015 service centre engaged to provide after sales and repairs services in connection with mobile phones sold in India under the brands Mi and Xiaomi. OP-1 admits that complainant purchased a mobile handset sold under the Mi brand namely Redmi-2 mobile phone for Rs.6,999/- from OP-2 through on-line which was carried out by complainant on 24.03.2015. All Mi and Xiaomi brand mobile phones sold within India are sold under a standard set of warranty terms. The warranty terms are available at OP-1 website. OP-1 admits that complainant approached OP-3 on 09.10.2015 with a complaint regarding the product. On examination by the service engineer, it was ascertained that the screen of the product was cracked/broken and same was recorded in the job sheet that the display of the received product was damaged, that this damage was a customer induced damage and was out of warranty and repairing this damage would involve an estimated cost of Rs.2,550/-. OP-3 during inspection found that mother board of the product was damaged due to waterlogging and the shield on the mother board was also missing. Since both the damages are not covered under the warranty terms, same was promptly communicated to the complainant and complainant was advised by OP-3 to purchase a new handset as the total cost of repairing the mother board and the display of the product is almost the same as the cost of purchasing a new handset. OP-1 subsequently received a copy of the complaint alleging that the received product had a dent/crack, the product supplied by OP-1 and OP-3 have exhibited deficiency of service and the complainant therefore believes that he is entitled to receive a refund of price of the product with interest, compensation and cost of the litigation. At the outset the warranty applicable to the product clearly states that any damage occurs in/on outer surface of the product, Complaint No.1740/2015 including but not limited to cracks, dents or scratches on the exterior cases, screens camera, lenses, buttons and other attachments. In this case the allegations of the complainant is that the product has a cracked screen and a faulty mother board. Since the complainant has got the mobile phone repaired and paid the cost of the damaged screen without any objection which proves that the fault is on the complainant and there is every possibility that the damage to the screen has arisen as a consequence of misuse and mishandling, while it was in the possession of the complainant. Complainant has not presented any evidence, but assumption that the alleged screen damage and fault in the mother board is a consequence of defect in the product and not a consequence of misuse or mis handling by the complainant. Thus, complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for. Among other grounds, OP-1 prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost. Inspite of service of notice OP 2 and 3 remained absent without sufficient reason and cause. Hence, they were placed exparte.

4. In support of complaint averments Sri.Madhu Sudhan, who being the complainant in this case has filed his affidavit by way of evidence reiterating the complaint averments and also filed written arguments, produced documents.

5. We have perused the documents produced by the complainant. Document No.1 is copy of the Retail Invoice Bill dated 24.03.2015 sold by WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Complaint No.1740/2015 Rs.6,999/- for having purchased mobile handset Redmi-2 bearing IMEI No.866392020442368. Document No.2 is copy of the Job Sheet dated 09.10.2015 issued by Xiaomi Service Centre to the complainant. Document No.3 is copy of the email sent by complainant to OP dated 10.10.2015.

6. In support of the defence version, Mr.Manu Kumar Jain, Authorized Representative of OP-1 filed his affidavit by way of evidence and also filed written argument and produced documents. Document No.R-1 is copy of the invoice dated 24.03.2015. Document No.R-2 is copy of the Limited warranty of Xiaomi products one year for hardware and six months for battery, charger and other accessories. Document No.R-3 is copy of the Job Sheet and email sent by the complainant and we have perused the citations produced by OP-1.

7. From the above contentions, the points that arises for our consideration in this complaint are as under:

1) Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP, as alleged in the complaint?

2) What relief or order?

8. Our answer to the above points:

1. Point No. 1 : In Affirmative

2. Point No. 2 : As per final order for the following Complaint No.1740/2015 REASONS

10 . POINT NO.1: At the outset it is not in dispute that complainant purchased Xiaomi Redmi-2 from OP-1 on 24.03.2015 by paying Rs.6,999/- as per Document No.1 invoice through online website of OP-2. Within seven months of its purchase there was no display in the handset. On 08.10.2015 complainant approached OP-3 service centre, the handset was examined by one Ms.Heena, she confirmed the defect in display panel and the same would be replaced on payment of Rs.2,550/- by the complainant. Complainant also agreed for the same. Now the greivance of the complainant is that on 12.10.2015 he received a call from the service centre stating that mother board needs to be replaced on chargeable basis and insisted the complainant to purchase a new handset. Complainant sent an email stating the said incident happened after he handed over the handset to the service centre. If he fails to get the proper service he will approach the consumer forum. After that complainant was again directed to take the handset to service centre. Hence, this complaint.

11. As against the case of the complainant the main defence of OP-1 is the display damage on the handset was customer induced damage and was out of warranty and estimated cost would be Rs.2,550/-, mother board of the handset was damaged due to waterlogging and shield on the mother board was also missing. Since the damages are not covered under the warranty, complainant was advised to purchase a new handset. Complaint No.1740/2015

12. We have perused the document produced by the complainant. Complainant has purchased the handset on 24.03.2015 by paying a sum of Rs.6,999/- as per invoice. As per the jobsheet dated 09.10.2015 produced by the complainant, OP-3 has not mentioned about the damage to mother board. It is mentioned only that customer induced damage, T/p scratch and cover scratch. OP-3 has agreed to repair the same for a sum of Rs.2,550/- which sum was mentioned on the job sheet. As per Document No.3 email dated 10.10.2015 complainant has stated that next day he received a call from OP-3 stating that the mother board is faulty and he was suggested to purchase a new handset. On perusal of these documents, we are of the opinion that this is a clear case of service deficiency. What prevented OP-3 to inform the complainant on 08.10.2015 itself, to disclose the details of all the damages and cost of repairs to the complainant. When complainant agreed to pay the repairs charges next day OP-3 informed about the mother board which is nothing, but an after thought. As per the warranty produced by OP-1 the said handset is having one year warranty. Collecting repair charges within the warranty period amounts to unfair trade practice. Complainant is entitled for free repair, replacement or refund within the warranty period. Suggesting the complainant to go for purchasing a new handset within the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. This act of OPs in neither repairing the handset within the warranty period nor refunding amount and not disclosing the damages at a time and suggesting the complainant to purchase a new handset within a warranty period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. We are satisfied that complainant proved deficiency in service against OPs. Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that Complaint No.1740/2015 OPs are jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of the handset to the complainant with litigation cost of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which to pay the said amount along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realisation. Admittedly, today the handset is in the custody of OP-3 service centre. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.

2. OPs 1 to 3 are jointly and severally shall pay a sum of Rs.6,999/- to the complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which to pay the said amount along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of this order till realization.

3. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 4th day of January 2018) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Complaint No.1740/2015 COMPLAINT NO.1740/2015 Complainant Opposite Parties Sri.Madhu Sudan, S2, Vintage Blossom, 4th Cross Hosapalya Main Road, HSR Layout, 2nd Sector, Bangalore-560068.

1) Managing Director, Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore-560103.

2) Managing Director, Flipkart, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore-560087.

3) Manager, M/s.MI Exclusive Service Center, Bangalore-560095. Witness examined on behalf of the complainants dated 15.03.2016

1) Mr.Madhusudhan LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT

1. Doc. No.1 is copy of the retail invoice bill dated 24.03.2015 sold by WS Retail Service Pvt. Ltd.

2. Doc. No. is copy of the Job Sheet dated09.10.2015 issued by Xiaomi Service Centre to the complainant.

3. Doc No. No.3 is copy of the email sent by complainant to OP dated 10.10.2015 Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP-1 dated 07.04.2016

1) Mr.Manu Kumar Jain, Authorised Representative of OP-1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE OP-1

1. Doc. No.R-1 is copy of the invoioce dated 24.03.2015.

2. Doc. No.R-2 is copy of the limited warranty of Xiaomi products.

3. Doc No.R-3 is copy of the jobsheet and email sent by the complainant.

4 Doc No.4 are citations. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT