PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 53/2021

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Priya @ Sarani Suna,

W/o- Pratap Kumar Suna

R/o- Attachakipada, PO/PS-Burla

Tahasil/Munsif/Dist-Sambalpur-768017.                           ...………..Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Manager Customer Care

Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.Ltd.

Ground Floor, AKR Infinity, Sy. No.113

Krishna Reddy Industrial Area

7^th Mile, Hosur Road Bangalore-560068, Karnataka.                              

2. Sprimon Technologies, Dhuchurapara Chowk

Near Bank G.M. College Road, Sambalpur-768004(Odisha)

3. The Proprietor AUDIO & VIDEO CLEANIC

(House of Phone Mobiles)

Sales, Spare, Services

Budharaja, Sambalpur(Odisha)-768004.                   …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant           :-       Sri. P.K.Suna, Adv. & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                       :-       Exparte

Date of Filing:01.10.2021,     Date of Hearing :11.04.2023,     Date of Judgement : 15.05.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased a Mobile Hand set Redmi Note 9 Pro which cost have Rs. 14,500/- including GST from the OP No. 3 on dtd. 02.10.2020 for her personal use. From the date of purchase the mobile was operating smoothly but after period of almost two months problem started. On dtd. 06.12.2020 the Complainant reported the matter to the OP No. 3 but the OP No. 3 advised her to go to the OP No.2 with her complain. On dtd. 16.01.2021, the Complainant went to the OP No. 2 with a problem of network issue as well as the phone became one sided in the middle of conversion. After enquiry the technician of the OP No. 2 advised her for updating new software. After updating the software the problem could not solved and the problem was as it is before appearing. Thereafter the husband of the Complainant visited the OP No. 3 and OP No. 2 several times for the redressal of his problem but what they provide was a temporary solution and not a permanent one. The Complainant also approached the customer care i.e. OP No.1 several time but they want to wrap up the whole things with their honey-smeared talk and assured her that the problem of the Complainant will be solved very soon. Even after a period of eleven months, the problem of the Complainant was not solved. The Complainant even mailed to the company website regarding her complain but not answered satisfactorily. So it is a clear case of deficiency of service on part of the OPs.

2. The O.Ps are set exparte.

3. From the above it is found that the Complainant purchased the handset from the OP No.3 is a defective one and the OPs did not take step to repair the mobile. The OP No.2 is the authorized service center and the OP NO. 3 is the dealer. After two months of purchase the product started giving trouble and the O.Ps not challenged the allegations. Hence defective goods supplied is established against O.P. No.1 Company.

Accordingly it is ordered that the Complaint Petition filed by the Complainant is allowed on merit. The O.P No.1 is directed to replace the defective cell phone or refund Rs. 14,500/- toward price of the cell phone to the Complainant, Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony, physical agony, financial loss, harassment and deficiency in service to the Complainant and Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of this Order failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 15^th day of May, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.