D.O.F:07/06/2022

                                                                                                   D.O.O:15/03/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,    KASARAGOD

      CC.No.113/2022

Dated this, the 15^th day of March 2023

PRESENT:                                                  

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                        : MEMBER

Sreenil Raj. M,

Chettathode (House),

Iriyanni (P.O),                                                           : Complainant

Kasaragod – 671542,

Kerala

                                        And

Manager,

Customer Care,

Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd,

Ground Floor, AKR Infinity

SyNo.113,                                                                 : Opposite Party

Krishna Reddy Industrial Area,

7^th Mile, Hosur Road,

Bangalore – 560068,

Karnataka

ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER

The complainant is alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party in connection with the update given by the company to the phone POCO X2, as he is having the same model.  The brief facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a mobile phone from Opposite Party through flipkart for Rs.18,499/- on 11/06/2020.  Within one year of purchase the camera of the mobile became defective.  When contacted to customer care, it is informed that the issue will be cleared in next update.  Thereafter one sim slot of the phone became defective.  The nonfunctioning of the mobile phone badly affected the Complainant to prepare for his exams.  On enquiry it is revealed that this defect occurred due to the update done by the company and some of the centers exchanged the phone to customers.  But the warranty period of the Complainant’s phone is over by that time.  So they are not ready to give a new phone, replacing the defective one.  The Complainant is seeking refund of the price of the mobile phone with compensation of Rs.15,000/- for the mental agony and the loss suffered by him and cost of Rs.5,000/-

Notice served to Opposite Parties but they remained absent.  Name of Opposite Party called, absent, set exparte

The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 and A2 marked.  Ext.A1 is the tax invoice and Ext.A2 is the service order issued by opposite party.

The issues raised for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief?

For convenience issues 1 and 2 can be discussed together. 

          The Complainant purchased the aforesaid phone for his educational purpose.  After the update by the company camera of the phone is not functioning.  After one month of the update one of the sim slot is not working, no signal is receiving.  Moreover it had display issue.  When approached the service center they told that it is due to update.  After the updation the mother board of the phone became defective that is why many issues are facing some of the costumers get replacement of the phone and free service from the company’s side.  But in this case Opposite Party find an excuse that the warranty period is over.  According to the Complainant it is the mistake from the company side at the time of update.  The display issue badly affected the semester examinations of the Complainant.  The documents produced by the Complainant proves that purchase of the mobile phone and it became defective.

The complainant approached service centre many times to get the issues cured.  But Opposite Party evaded from curing the defects by telling lame excuses.  On enquiry the complainant understood that POCO x2 and POCO x3 customers are facing these issues by the update given from the company.  Many of the customers get replacement of the phone and free repair from the company’s side but this opposite party simply evaded by the complaints even though it is their own mistake on update.  As the issues started at the time of semester exam the complainant suffered severe mental agony at that time. 

          After sale service of a product is the right of the customer but opposite party did not care to cure the defects or replace the phone even after many requests from the side of the complainant.  This amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The complainant’s loss and agony is to be compensated.  The complainant is seeking refund of the price of the mobile phone with a compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost.  We carefully perused the affidavit and documents filed by the complainant.  We are of the view that refund of the price of the mobile phone with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with a cost of Rs.3,000/- is a genuine relief in this case.

          In the result the complaint is allowed refund Rs.18,499/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Nine only) with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) along with a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only).

Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this judgement

    Sd/-                                                                Sd/-                                                     Sd/-

Exhibit

A1:  Tax invoice

A2:  Service order issued by the Opposite Party

     Sd/-                                                     Sd/-                                            Sd/-

Forwarded by Order

                                                                      Assistant Registrar

Ps/