DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Monday the 29^th day of April 2024

CC.377/2022

Complainant

Vyshnav. K.M,

Kallada Meethal,

                        Chemmalathoor,

                         Kuttikkattoor.P.O,

Kozhikode - 673008

Opposite Parties

1.               Managing Director,

Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd,

Building Orchid, Block E,

Embassy Tech Village, Marathahalli,

Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahalli,

Bengaluru – 560103

2.               Manager,

Customer Care,

Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd,

Ground Floor, AKR Infinity,

Sy No. 113, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area,

                        7^th Mile, Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560068

                        Karnataka.

3.              Global Infocom (Authorised MI Service Centre),

59/1834, 2^nd Floor, MA Complex,

Annie Hall Road, Kozhikode - 673002

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT

            This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

On 05/08/2021 the complainant purchased a POCO M3 smart phone through flipkart paying Rs. 12,999/-. It was purchased for the use his brother, who was studying in 11^th standard, to attend online classes during Covid -19 pandemic.

3. Just after one year of purchase, POCO provided a software update and the complainant installed it expecting a better software experience as claimed by the company. But after the software update installation, the smartphone did not turn on. The complainant took the phone to the third opposite party, which is the authorised service centre. They informed that it was a main board issue and it has to be replaced. It was also informed that as the product warranty had expired, he had to pay Rs. 7,904/- for the repair. It is completely unfair because it was the software update provided by the company that made the phone dead. Though he contacted the company’s customer care, their response was not satisfactory.
4. The phone is dead because of the software update provided by the company and the company is fully responsible for the problem. The root cause for the problem is the inefficient quality control mechanism during manufacturing and the poor testing of the software before pushing it to the users. Many POCO users are facing the same problem. The complainant registered a grievance in the INGRAM (Integrated Grievance Redressal Mechanism), but the response of the company was not satisfactory. Hence the complaint for refund of the price along with compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant.
5. The opposite parties were set ex-parte.
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;                                                                                                                    1) Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?

             2) Reliefs and costs.

7. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A5 were marked.
8. Heard.  
9. Point No 1:    The complainant has approached this Commission seeking refund of the price of the smartphone along with compensation. The grievance of the complainant is that the POCO M3 smart phone purchased by him is not turning on because of the installation of software update provided by the company.
10. PW1, who is none other than the complainant, has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the invoice dated 07/08/2021, Ext A2 is the copy of the service record, Ext A3 is the copy of the e-mail communication with customer care, Ext A4 is the INGRAM grievance status and Ext A5 is the copy of the public comments on POCO phone issues.
11. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have not turned up to file version. They have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. There is no contra evidence to disprove the claim. The case of the complainant that the phone became dead because of the software update provided by the manufacturer stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A5 documents. Deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties stands proved. The opposite parties are liable to repair the smartphone of the complainant and make it in a sound working condition, or in the alternative, refund the price of the product to the complainant. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.
12. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

                 a)  CC. 377/2022 is allowed in part.

b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to repair / service POCO M3 (Power Black 120 GB)  smart phone of the complainant and make it in a sound working condition within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, or in the alternative, refund the price of Rs. 12,999/ (Rupees Twelve thousand nine hundred and ninety nine) to the complainant, after taking back the smart phone. It is made clear that the complainant shall not be required to pay any charges for the said repair. 

c) No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 29^th day of April, 2024.

Date of Filing: 31/12/2022

                                       Sd/-                                                                Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

                                PRESIDENT                                                  MEMBER                                       MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – Copy of the invoice dated 07/08/2021.

Ext.A2 – Copy of the service record.

Ext.A3 – Copy of the e-mail communication with customer care.

Ext.A4 – INGRAM grievance status. 

Ext.A5 – Copy of the public comments on POCO phone issues.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 - Febina. K, (Complainant)

                                                     Sd/-                                                              Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

                                              PRESIDENT                                                 MEMBER                                       MEMBER

True Copy, 

                                                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                            Assistant Registrar.