By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

1.The complaint in short is as follows: -

        On 24/06/2021  complainant ordered  one Xiaomi Redmi 10i Atlantic Blue 5G   mobile phone worth Rs.23,999/-  through online from   MI   India’s  official website.Complainant got the phone on 29/06/2021.   On the very first day of delivery of the phone is showed symptoms of a faulty display.  The display was intermittently turning off itself while using. But after a few minutes, the display would work normally and this phenomenon of turning the display off will continue to occur indefinitely.  When complainant tried to register a complaint through online as advised by the customer care of Mi India and he got an appointment with the service centre in Palakkad district, instead of getting a slot in Malappuram district.

2.      In the meanwhile, complainant got a phone call from a technician of Palakkad service centre and that person advised the complainant to reset and update the phone. Nevertheless the phone display was getting blank frequently and would stay black for a few seconds.  It also showed problems with voice recording and listening.  Finally complainant called MI India customer care seeking an appointment with the nearby Mi Service centre at Manjeri. Then complainant got an appointment with Mad Tech IT solution Tirur.  On the scheduled date of August 25^th complainant   visited the service centre at Tirur in person and hand over the mobile phone to the technician. On the initial examination, the technician told the complainant that the display and the sensor of the phone have problems and would be resolved in a few days. After three days the technician called the complainant to come to the service centre for taking the phone back since the phone had been repaired. On 29^th August complainant visited the service centre and received the mobile phone.  Then he realised that the problem of the mobile handset had become worse than before. The phone display was getting black more frequently than ever before and it became a problem for the complainant to record and listen to voice messages. The voice messages were always seen broken while recording or listening to.

3.     Again complainant tried to  sent the phone to opposite parties  through a courier  service , but opposite parties rejected his request  and  insisted him  to hand over the phone to the service centre in person. Opposite party No.2 also never attends to customer grievances prudently and never take steps to redress the grievance of the consumers. Complainant again stated that, there is no physical damage to the mobile phone, then the issue might have been caused by some manufacturing defects.  He had faced a lot of trouble, inconvenience and sufferings since the service provider and the company breached the contract of warranty by failing to repair/replace the phone in the very first instances.  It is a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.  Hence this complaint. 

4.         The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get a full refund of Rs. 23,999/- the cost of the mobile phone to him or replacement of the phone, Rs.10,000/-as compensation on account of deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and cost of the proceedings. 

5.            On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and opposite party No.1 received notice but they did not turn up.    Hence they set exparte. Opposite party No.2 received notice and represented before the Commission through their counsel.   Thereafter  opposite party No.2  filed version  which is beyond the statutory period of 45 days. On 23/05/2022  no version already recorded.   Hence opposite party No.2 also set exparte.  Thereafter   the case posted for the affidavit of complainant.

6.            In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1  and A2. Ext.A1 is the copy of Tax invoice for Rs. 23,999/- dated 24/06/2021, Ext.A2 is the copy of service record given by opposite party No.1 to complainant on 25/08/2021.

 7.      Heard the complainant and perused the affidavit and documents filed by complainant. The allegations against opposite parties are proved by the unchallenged evidence of complainant. There is no contra evidence in this matter.   Moreover complainant produced two documents which are very supportive to prove his case. As per Ext.A1 it is clear that on 24/06/2021 complainant had ordered the mobile phone through online which was manufactured by opposite party No.2. From Ext.A2, the service record given by opposite party No1 to complainant, it is clear that on 25/08/2021 complainant had entrusted the mobile phone to opposite party No.1 for repair. That means the mobile phone had problems within two months of its purchase.  Moreover in that service record it is clearly noted that the service is in the warranty period and the mobile phone had display problem. In that document, it is clearly mentioned in the inspection remarks that the mobile phone had sensor fault. From the documents, complaint and affidavit filed by complainant it is clear that within two months of its use the newly purchased mobile phone had issues. Moreover as per complainant’s case on the very first day of delivery of the phone, it showed some symptoms of faulty display.  In Ext.A2 there also mentioned that the phone had display problem and opposite party No.1 after inspection found that it has sensor fault. From the above facts it is clear that complainant‘s mobile hand set had manufacturing defect. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. So complainant is entitled to get the amount refunded from opposite parties and he also entitled to get a compensation and cost of the proceedings. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite parties are deficient in service.

8.  We allow this complaint  as follows:-

1. The opposite parties are  directed to refund Rs.23,999/-(Rupees Twenty three thousand  nine hundred and ninety nine only)  the cost of the mobile phone  to the complainant and complainant is directed to returned back the mobile phone to opposite parties after full payment by opposite parties. 
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only ) as cost of the proceedings.

           If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite parties are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.

Dated this 18^th day of January, 2023.

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant                               : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant                             : Ext.A1 &A2

Ext.A1 : Copy of Tax invoice for Rs. 23,999/- dated 24/06/2021.

Ext.A2 : Copy of service record given by opposite party No.1 to complainant on

               25/08/2021.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party                              : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party                            : Nil

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER