IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2022
Present: - Smt.S.Sandhya Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.53/2022
Nasimudeen,
S/o Muhammad Musthafa,
Poyikayil Veedu, Cherukulam P.O.,: Complainant
Chunda, Anchal, Kollam 691306.
V/s
Manager,
MYG CARE, Soudha Manzil,
Plamoodu, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram 695004.: Opposite party
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:-
The complainant has purchased a REDMI 9 POWER XIAOMI mobile phone from the Manager, MYG CARE, on 18.08.2021 by paying an amount of Rs.12,498/-. At the time of purchase the opposite party assured the complainant that the hand set has fully warranty and guaranty. The warranty conditions are printed along with the invoice dated 18.08.2021. In the warranty card, it has been specifically stated that during the warranty period the manufacturer will rectify the defect free of charge by either repairing or replacing the defective mobile. Thereafter within a few days of purchase it was notice by the complainant the mobile phone become defective. This fact was informed to the opposite party and
they assured the complainant that they will rectify the defect. Believing the words of the opposite party complainant approached the opposite party and by entrusting the defective phone and appraised them about the defect which is within the guaranty period and demanded to rectify the defect. At that time the opposite party demanded Rs.6,000/- as service charge though the defect was occurred to the guaranty period. The complainant is not bound to pay the said amount to the opposite party. But the opposite party evaded from the request of the complainant and humiliated him. Therefore the complainant has contacted the service centre of Redmi mobile Rivea Tech Services 205, 1st Floor Annas Arcade, Spencer Jn., MG Road, Thiruvnananthapuram of the mobile phone and handed over the same to the service centre. After examining the mobile phone they informed that there is “water damages” and it can only be repaired with a cost of Rs.6,000/-. Even though the complainant had told the technicians that the phone become defective within the guaranty period but they were firm on their demand. So the opposite party is bound to repair or rectify the defect free of cost. The complainant had used the said mobile phone only for 6 months and the opposite party did not come with any solution for the redressal of the grievances of the complainant even after repeated requests and demands. This is a clear case of manufacturing defect and opposite party is liable for the same. Due to this the above mentioned acts the complainant had suffered loss and damage and mental agony. The opposite party is under obligation to keep the mobile handset in perfect condition at least for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase by the complainant which they failed to do so. The opposite party had acted in most negligent manner while dealing with the complaint of the complainant and he had suffered loss and injury and entitled to compensation. The opposite party has not complied the terms of guaranty and warranty and have acted in an extremely negligent in redressing the grievance of the complainant for which complainant was not able to use the mobile phone comfortably till date after become defective and had been under
great mental pressure. The said act of the opposite party is clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice hence the complaint.
Though notice was issued to the opposite party they failed to appear before the commission nor made any representation hence they were set exparte. The complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A4 documents. Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the records. Ext.A1 is the original copy of invoice dated 18.08.2021 with warranty conditions. Ext.A2 is the service order from the service centre of the Redmi mobile, Rivea Tech Services 205, 1st Floor Annas Arcade, Spencer Jn., MG Road, Thiruvnananthapuram. Ext.A3 is the visiting card of Xiaomi, Rivea Tech Services 205, 1st Floor Annas Arcade, Spencer Jn., MG Road, Thiruvnananthapuram. Ext.A4 is the driving license of the complainant.
The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.A1 to A4 documents would establish primafacie that the complainant had purchased a Redmi 9 mobile phone on 18.08.2021. It is clear from Ext.A1 invoice itself explanatory about the warranty conditions are about the warranty conditions specifically mentioned that the defects will be cured by the opposite party at any time. According to Ext.A1 almost all defects can be cured within the guaranty and warranty period free of cost. Ext.A2 was issued from the service centre of Redmi 9 Power-4GB plus 64 GD. Though the opposite party had told the complainant there is water logging in the mobile and for rectifying that defect Rs.6,000/- will be incurred as service charge. It is pertinent to note that the said defect has been sustained within the period of guaranty and warranty period.
On evaluating the entire materials we hold that the mobile phone Redmi 9 Power purchased from the opposite party had become defective within the warranty and guaranty period. However the opposite party had failed to repair orreplace the same. It is an established fact that opposite party is under obligation to
keep the mobile phone perfect working condition at least for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase by the complainant which they failed to do so. The complainant had knocked the door of opposite party with defective mobile set but his grievance is not solved. Hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Further the phone is with the opposite party and an obligation is on their part to prove there is no manufacturing defect for the product and in its absence we hold the view the phone had manufacturing defect. It is very pertinent to note that the admitted defect happen during guaranty and warranty period. The complainant has sustained mental agony apart from financial loss. In the circumstances we are of the view that the complaint is only to be allowed.
In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.
- The opposite party is directed to substitute a brand new mobile phone of the same value and specifications to the complainant or to repay its price of Rs.12,498/- and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
- The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as the costs of the proceedings.
- The opposite party is directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to realize the amount for Rs.12,498/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the realization along with the costs from the opposite party and by charging on their assets both movable and immovable.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 30th day of June 2022.
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.A1 :The original copy of invoice dated 18.08.2021 with warranty conditions.
Ext.A2 : The service order from the service centre of the Redmi mobile,
Rivea Tech Services 205, 1st Floor Annas Arcade, Spencer Jn.,
MG Road, Thiruvnananthapuram.
Ext.A3 : The visiting card of Xiaomi, Rivea Tech Services 205, 1st Floor
Annas Arcade, Spencer Jn., MG Road, Thiruvnananthapuram.
Ext.A4 : The driving license of the complainant.
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil
