IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

                                                                                   C.C.No. 92/2022

                                                                                       PRESENT

SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT

 SRI.  STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER

                                                  ORDER DATED:    30.03.2024

BETWEEN

Vishnu Chandran,

Chandralayam,Vavvakkavu P.O.,

Karunagappally 690528.                                                                                   :           Complainant

AND

1.      Head Quarters Xiaomi Technoloy

India Pvt.Ltd., Building orchid Block E,

Embassy Tech Village, Marathallil,

Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahalli,

Geecell, M.K.Building,

Vadayattukotta Mill Road,

Near St.Joseph Convent, Kollam 691001.

Rahiya Mobiles (RM Digital hub) : Opposite parties

Pichinattu Junction, Marappally,

Vavvakkavu, Karunagappally,

Karunagapplly, Kollam 690574.

                        (Additional Opposite parties impleaded as per I.A 119/2022 dated 29/05/2023.)     

ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

          This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

Complainant purchased one Redminote 10-Promax(IMI No.867972053271856) from the “Rahiya mobiles”, Pichinattu Junction, Manappally, Vavvakkavu, Karunagappally the 3^rd  opposite party in this complaint who is the authorized dealer of Rahiya mobiles at Karunagappally.  The 2^nd opposite party is the manager, Geecell, MK Building, Vadayattukotta Mill Road, Near St.Joseph Convent, Kollam 691001 and 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the mobile.  The complainant purchased above said mobile phone on 24.08.2021 by paying an amount of Rs.22,500/-.  Within a few days of purchase it was noticed by the complainant that the battery charge of the handset declining.  Thereafter complainant produced the mobile phone before the authorized service centre at Kottarakkara, they serviced the software of the mobile phone. The phone then rebooted while being used again. The complainant contacted the service centre as directed by the customer care.  Complainant produced the mobile phone before the 3^rd opposite party at Kollam.  After thorough examination they told the complainant that the board of the phone is complaint and the complainant told them to replace the phone.  But they told the complainant to use the phone by replacing the board.  But within 15 days the mobile phone again became defective.  When the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party they replaced the software again.  Thereafter also mobile phone showed the same complaint.  So the complainant filed a complaint before the NCHD.  They had intimated the manufacturing company through email but the manufacturing company did not respond to the grievance of the complainant.  Complainant is a student and with the help of the mobile phone he attended his classes through online mode.  The important datas stored in the mobile phone has been deleted subsequently complainant has again installed the datas but it was also deleted due to the frequent defect of the mobile phone.  The defect of the mobile phone had caused serious problems to the studies of the complainant.  Due to this he could not attend his classes regularly and prepare for the examination.  The complainant had requested the opposite parties to replace the mobile phone or to refund the amount received from the complainant.  The opposite parties are under obligation to keep the mobile phone in perfect working condition atleast for a period of 12 months from the day of purchase by the complainant which they failed to do so.  The 2^nd opposite party had acted in most negligent manner dealing with the complainant of the complaint and he had suffered loss and injury and entitled to compensation.  The opposite parties have not complied with the terms assured at the time of purchase of the mobile.   The act of the opposite parties comes under the purview of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint.

Though notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Commission, they neither appeared before the Commission nor made any representation, though 3^rd opposite party appeared once and remained absent thereafter. The opposite parties have not filed their versions either and hence, they were set exparte.

The complainant initially filed chief affidavit and documents A1 to A4 were marked on 21.12.2022 by reiterating the averments in the complaint and thereafter additional opposite parties 2 and 3 were impleaded.  Hence the complainant filed fresh affidavit on 30.11.2023.  The opposite parties never turned up to cross examine PW1.  Hence the affidavit of PW1 stands unchallenged.  Heard the complainant in person and perused the records.  Ext.A1 is the invoice issued from Rahiya mobiles dated 24.08.2021.  Ext.A2 is the service record dated 04.10.2021.  Ext.A3 is service record dated 05.11.2021 and Ext.A4 is service record dated 16.11.2021.

          The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.A1 document would establish prima facie that complainant had purchased a  Redminote 10-Promax8/128 blue mobile on 24.08.2021.   It is clear from the Ext.A2 service record the mobile phone has become defective and it was rendered for service on 04.10.2021 with a complaint of battery backup fault.  The mobile phone showed the complaint from the very beginning of the purchase.  Therefore they had rectified the software and returned the mobile.  On 05.11.2021 the mobile phone had become again defective showing the complaint of ‘auto power off reboot issue, stuck issue’ then the opposite parties had directed to entrust the mobile phone before the service centre at Kollam.  They have thoroughly examined the mobile phone and told the complainant that there is complaint in the main board and that has been replaced.  After a lapse of 15 days, the same complaints persisted in the mobile phone despite repairs being carried out. In the circumstances the complainant has preferred a complaint before the NCHD and they had forwarded by email to the manufacturing company (1^st opposite party) but they did not respond to the grievance of the complainant.  The main grievance of the complainant is that he is a student studying his routine lessons with the help of mobile free online media.  Due to the continuous defect of the mobile he has faced much difficulties in his studies.  Moreover the datas installed in his mobile has been deleted due to the frequent defects in the mobile.  However the complainant had intimated  his grievance to defend offices of the opposite parties.  There was no response.  The opposite parties had not taken any efforts to solve the problems of mobile phone.  It is pertinent to note that the defects of the mobile phone are evident from Ext.A2 to A4.

The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.A1 to A4 would establish prima facie that on 24.08.2021 the complainant had purchased a mobile phone from the 2^nd opposite  party by paying Rs.22,500/-. It is obligatory on the part of the opposite parties to keep the mobile phone in working condition at least for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase by the complainant but they failed to do so.  The opposite parties have acted in most negligent manner while dealing with the grievance of the complainant and thereby the complainant has suffered loss and mental agony and he had to suffer due to the break in his study due to the defective mobile phone.    The complainant had knocked the doors of the opposite parties to solve the problem of his mobile phone.  It is also clear from the materials available on record that the opposite parties have not set right the defect of the mobile phone or replace the same though it is clear that the defect sustained during the warranty period. 

Based on the evidence presented, it can be concluded that the complainant has effectively substantiated his case. He has provided evidence of unlawful conduct, breach of warranty, poor product quality, and the resulting harm and losses he has endured. Consequently, the complainant is justified in seeking the relief sought.  The evidence presented strongly supports the complainant's claims, making it both just and fair to grant him the relief he is seeking.

In the result the complaint is allowed.

The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to provide the complainant with a brand-new mobile phone of equivalent value and specifications within 30 days from the receipt of this order. Failure to do so will result in the opposite parties being liable to pay the complainant an amount of   Rs.22,500/-. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as the costs of the proceedings. In the event of failure to make these payments, the complainant shall be entitled to interest at a rate of 12% from the date of the initial complaint.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 30^th day of  March 2024.

Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD

MEMBER

Sd/-

S.K.SREELA

PRESIDENT

Forwarded/by Order                       

                            Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.A1              : Invoice issued from Rahiya mobiles dated 24.08.2021

Ext.A2             : Service record dated 04.10.2021

Ext.A3             : Service record dated 05.11.2021

Ext.A4              : Service record dated 16.11.2021

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil                                                                      

Sd/-

                                                                                          PRESIDENT