Mi
Latest Judgments
Total 131 Consumer Court Cases Against Mi.
MI COM/IN AND OTHER V/S RANJIT SINGH
Court Name: Bilaspur
Appelant Advocate SMT VIJAYA LAXMI
Respondant Advocate
Case Number: 16
|
Date of Filing: 23-09-2016
|
Date of Upload: 14-02-2017
Xiaomi Mi India V/S Sahil Bansal
Court Name: Sangrur
Appelant Advocate Shri Ritesh Jindal
Respondant Advocate
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR Complaint no. 622 Instituted on: 20.10.2016 Decided on: 14.12.2016Sahil Bansal son of Shri Naseeb Chand resident of Pappu Di Chakki Ajit Nagar...
Case Number: 622
|
Date of Filing: 20-10-2016
|
Date of Upload: 26-12-2016
Xiaomi Mi India V/S Sahil Bansal
Court Name: Sangrur
Appelant Advocate Shri Ritesh Kuumar Jindal
Respondant Advocate
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRURJUDICIAL COURT COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, SANGRUR (148001)PUNJABComplaint Case No. CC/527/20161. Sahil BansalSahil Bansal Son of Sh. Naseeb Chand, resisdent of Pappu Di Chakki Ajit Nagar, Barnala Fatak, Tehsil and District Sangrur.........
Case Number: 527
|
Date of Filing: 01-09-2016
|
Date of Upload: 26-12-2016
1.Maytas Properties Limited, Regd. Office at Maytas Properties Limited, Hill Country, Bachupally, Mi V/S 1. Mr. Arumilli Anand, S/o. Arumilli Krishnudu, Aged about 37 Years, Occ: QA Manager,
Court Name: StateCommission
Appelant Advocate M/s. Prabhakar Sripada
Respondant Advocate Mr.K.Visweswar Reddy Op1 to Op3
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMTelanganaExecution Application No. EA/65/2013In1. 1. Mr. Arumilli Anand, S/o. Arumilli Krishnudu, Aged about 37 Years, Occ: QA Manager,R/o. Flat No.13, Surya Complex, Durganagar Colony, Punjagutta, Hyderabad.2. 2. Smt. S. Pragathi, W/o. Arum...
Case Number: 65
|
Date of Filing: 04-11-2013
|
Date of Upload: 10-01-2017
1.Maytas Properties Limited, Regd. Office at Maytas Properties Limited, Hill Country, Bachupally, Mi V/S 1. Mr. K. Madhu, S/o. Srinivasulu, Aged about 39 Years, Occ: IT Engineer,
Court Name: StateCommission
Appelant Advocate M/s. Prabhakar Sripada
Respondant Advocate Mr.K.Visweswar Reddy Op1 to Op3
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMTelanganaExecution Application No. EA/66/2013In1. 1. Mr. K. Madhu, S/o. Srinivasulu, Aged about 39 Years, Occ: IT Engineer,R/o. B1-45, Huda Colony, Chandanagar, Hyderabad-500 050.2. 2. Smt. K. Radhika W/o. Madhu K. Aged about 35 Years, Occ: ...
Case Number: 66
|
Date of Filing: 04-11-2013
|
Date of Upload: 09-12-2016
1.Maytas Properties Limited, Regd. Office at Maytas Properties Limited, Hill Country, Bachupally, Mi V/S 1. Kavitha Thonangi
Court Name: StateCommission
Appelant Advocate M/s. Prabhakar Sripada
Respondant Advocate M/s. Lotus law Associates
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMTelanganaExecution Application No. EA/68/2013In1. 1. Kavitha Thonangi 2-29-103, Plot 41 P and T Colony, Karkhana Secunderabad-500 009.Andhra Pradesh............Appellant(s)Versus1. 1.Maytas Properties Limited, Regd. Office at Maytas Propert...
Case Number: 68
|
Date of Filing: 04-11-2013
|
Date of Upload: 09-12-2016
Case Number: 541
|
Date of Filing: 01-06-2016
|
Date of Upload: 15-01-2019
Case Number: 14
|
Date of Filing: 22-06-2015
|
Date of Upload: 16-06-2016
Mi India Corporation office V/S Abinash Sahoo
Court Name: Bangalore Urban
Appelant Advocate In Person
Respondant Advocate
BANGALORE URBAN DIST.CONSUMERDISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,8TH FLOOR,BWSSB BLDG.K.G.ROAD,BANGALORE560 009Complaint Case No. CC/16/1261. Abinash SahooH. no. 116/4A, Uday Kumar Building, Munnekolalla, Marathalli, Bengaluru-037. ...........Complainant(s)Versus1. Mi India Corporation offi...
Case Number: 16
|
Date of Filing: 28-01-2016
|
Date of Upload: 23-05-2016
MI Electronic Ltd Ondia House V/S Santosh Kumar Mishra
Court Name: Purbi Singhbhum
Appelant Advocate
Respondant Advocate
Heading1Heading2Complaint Case No. CC/83/2015( Date of Filing : 28 Aug 2015 )1. Santosh Kumar Mishra H.No-D2, Khutadih, Sonari, Jamshedpur Purbi SinghbhumJharkhand ...........Complainant(s)Versus1. MI Electronic Ltd Ondia House G1, M.I.D.C MaaKali Kemp Road , Andhire , MumbaiMumb...
Case Number: 83
|
Date of Filing: 28-08-2015
|
Date of Upload: 16-09-2019
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.
Common FAQ
Question : Am I eligible to file case against Mi in Consumer Forum?
Answer : If you have purchased a product or avails any service, either for your personal use or to earn your livelihood by means of self-employment.
Question : When I can fill a complaint against Mi ?
Answer : A complaint may be made against Mi under the following circumstances:
1 : Loss or damage is caused to the consumer due to unfair or restrictive trade practice.
2 : the article purchased by you is defective.
3 : the services availed of by you suffer from any deficiency.
4 : charged more then MRP
5 : Goods or services, which will be hazardous to life and safety, when used, are being offered for sale to the public.
Question : Is there any exemption from payment of Court Fee?
Answer : The complainants who are Below the Poverty Line shall be entitled for the exemption of payment of fee for complaints upto rupees one lakh on production of an attested copy of the Antyodaya Anna Yojana card.
Question : What are the Reliefs available to Consumers?
Answer : The reliefs available are :
1 : Removal of defects from the goods
2 : Replacement of the goods
3 : Refund of the price paid.
4 : Removal of defects or deficiencies in the services
5 : Award of compensation for the loss or injury suffered;
6 : Discontinue and not to repeat unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice;
7 : To withdraw hazardous goods from being offered for sale;
8 : To cease manufacture of hazardous goods and desist from offering services which are hazardous in nature;
9 : If the loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently, to pay such sum (not less than 5% of the value of such defective goods or services provided) which shall be determined by the forum;
10 : To issue corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of misleading advertisement;
11 : To provide adequate costs to parties.