Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/308/2022

Vaishnav A S - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,Xiaomi Technology - Opp.Party(s)

29 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

   SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN             : PRESIDENT

SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR          : MEMBER

SRI.VIJU.V.R                         : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.308/2022 (Filed on : 29/07/2022)

ORDER DATED: 29/12/2022

COMPLAINANT

Vaishnav.A.S

Sivashylam, Perayam,

Perayam.P.O – 695562

Thiruvananthapuram

(Party in person)

                                                     VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

1. The Manager,

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited (MI)

Having Head Office at:

8.  

Marathnalli-Sarjapur Outer ring Road,

Bangalore, Karnataka, Pin – 560103

 

2. The Manager,

Xiaomi Authorized Service Centre,

205, 1^st Floor, Annas Arcade Spencer Junction,

Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala – 695001

1.  

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN         : PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.       This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties    1 & 2 accepted the notice on 13/08/2022 and on 11/08/2022 respectively and failed to appear before this commission as directed by this Commission and hence the opposite parties 1 & 2 were declared exparte on 26/09/2022.

3.       The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant purchased POCO X3 Pro (Steel Blue, 128 GB) model mobile phone from the first opposite party through Flipkart online shopping site on 10/05/2021 by paying Rs.18,999/- (Rupees eighteen thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) towards consideration. The complainant also purchased another mobile phone POCO X3 Pro (Steel Blue 128 GB) on 25/12/2021 through online shopping website from the opposite party by paying Rs.20,999/- (Rupees twenty thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only). On 14/01/2022 the first mobile phone purchased by the complainant ie POCO X3 Pro (Steel Blue, 128 GB) had some technical issues and the complainant approached the second opposite party and the second opposite party promised to repair the mobile phone free of charge as the complaint was occurred within the warranty period. For repairing the said mobile, the second opposite party requested three weeks time. After three weeks the second opposite party informed the complainant that the said mobile phone cannot be repaired and promised to replace the same with a brand new Redmi Note 10 Pro Max 6/128 worth Rs.17,499/- (Rupees seventeen thousand four hundred and ninety nine only). Though the promised phone was for a lower value, the complainant accepted that promise, as there was no other option. Subsequent to that the manager requested the complainant to wait for replacement till the stock of mobile phone arrives. After two weeks the manager of the second opposite party again contacted the complainant and requested him to contact the service centre for collecting the replaced mobile phone. Accordingly the complainant went to the service centre and the second opposite party to those surprise the manager instead of giving a mobile phone worth Rs.17,499/- (Rupees seventeen thousand four hundred and ninety nine only), offered a Redmi Note 10 Pro Max 6/128 worth Rs.14,999/ (Rupees fourteen thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) saying that this is the only option of replacement offered by the company. Though the complainant insisted for replacement of previously offered mobile phone worth Rs.17,499/-(Rupees seventeen thousand four hundred and ninety nine only), the second opposite party not heeded to that demand and as there was no other option,  the complainant was forced to accept that phone. After these incidents the sale of MIPOCO X3 mobile phone was stopped by the company from the online website. Subsequently, on 04/05/2022 the complainant’s second mobile phone worth Rs.20,999/- (Rupees twenty thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) was also had some defects and as the defects were found during the warranty period and considering the previous experience from the second opposite party service centre, the complainant directly contacted the Xioami customer care and as the response was not positive, the complainant approached the Central Government Online Legal India Website for considering his grievances. The complainant further submits that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached this commission for redressing his grievances.

4. The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 on the side of the complainant. The opposite parties 1 & 2 being declared exparte, there is no evidence from the side of the opposite parties.

5. The issues to be considered in this case

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint.
3. Ordered as to cost.

6.  Heard. Perused records, affidavit and documents. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts.P1 & P2 were produced and marked. Ext.P1 is the tax invoice issued by the opposite parties to the complainant for the purchase of the mobile phone for Rs.18,999/- (Rupees eighteen thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only). Ext.P2 is the tax invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant for the purchase of the mobile phone for Rs.20,999/- (Rupees twenty thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only). According to the complainant he is a student and due to the defects occurred to the mobile phone purchased by him from the opposite party, he has suffered a lot. The complainant’s case is that a defect to the mobile phone was occurred during the warranty period. Inspite of that fact, the opposite parties failed to provide proper service or replacement of the said mobile phone and instead handed over another phone by replacement worth Rs.14,999/- (Rupees fourteen thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only). According to the complainant these acts of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair practice. The opposite parties being declared exparte, there is no contra evidence to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant. Hence the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged. In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant. By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Exts.P1 & P2, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite parties. In view of the above discussions, we find that this complaint is allowed in favour of the complainant.          

        In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation and Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as the cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization / remittance.

                A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

        Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 29^th day of December 2022.

                                                                                              Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                      Sd/-       

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

 

                                                                                        Sd/-

                          VIJU.V.R        : MEMBER

 

be/

APPENDIX

CC.NO.308/2022

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - Vaishnav.A.S

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                   - Copy of tax invoice issued by the opposite parties to the complainant for the purchase of the mobile phone for Rs.18,999/-

Ext.P2                  - Copy of tax invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant for the purchase of the mobile phone for Rs.20,999/-

List of witness for the opposite parties       – NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite parties      - NIL

Court Exhibits                                           - NIL

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                              PRESIDENT