IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri. K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 178/2022 (Filed on 17/08/2022)
Complainant : Muhammed Fahis, aged 18 years
Subaida Manzil, Kummanam P.O,
Kottayam-686005
Ph: 7025534425
Vs
Opposite parties : 1. Managing Director,
Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.Ltd
Ground Floor AKR Infinity
Sy.No.113
Krishna Reddy Industrial Area
7th mile, Hosure Road,
Bangalore-560068
2. The Manager
Mobile Care Distributors
Pulickal Complex
Nagampadom, Kottayam
3. The Manager,
M.S.Services
Moosariparambil building
1st Floor , Erayilkadavu Road
Kottayam-686001
O R D E R
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
The Complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The brief of the Complainant’s case is as follows:- The complainant purchased Redmi Note 10 Pro Max 6/128 mobile phone from 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.20,500/- on 07.08.2021. On an assurance of one year warranty. On 16th June, 2022 the complainant found that the front camera of the phone was not working. He handed over the phone to the 3rd opposite party, the authorized service centre and they informed him that the defect is cured and returned the phone. But within two days the same defect occurred. The phone was entrusted to the 3rd opposite party again on 06.07.2022 Again it was returned on the assurance that the defect was cured. Thereafter the same defect repeated for several times and finally the 3rd opposite party hesitated to repair the same. They revealed that the defect could not be cured. By selling a defective product to a customer the 1st and 2nd opposite parties and by denying satisfied service the 3rd opposite party are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed for the replacement of the mobile phone with a new one or to return the price of the mobile phone and for compensation.
Though opposite party 1 to 3 received the notice from this commission they did not care to appear before the commission or file version, hence all the opposite parties were set exparte. The complainant filed proof affidavit along with exhibits A1 to A4.
On a perusal of the complaint, proof affidavit and the documents filed by the complainant we framed following issues.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
- If so what are the reliefs?
The complainant’s case is that he purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the 1st opposite party with a warranty of one year from the 2nd opposite party. The phone became defective within the warranty period and the complainant entrusted the phone for curing the defect with 3rd opposite party, but the defect was not cured.
There is no version or contrary evidence before us. On perusing Exbt.A1 to A2 documents we find that Exbt.A2 to A4 are the service report on the 3rd opposite party dated 16.06.2022 , 06.07.2022, 29.07.2022 respectively. In Exbt.A2 the fault description is “does not boot”. In Exhbt.A3 also the description of default is recorded as “does not boot”. In Exhbt.A3 the service type is ‘pending’ and the fault description is front camera not working.
So we find that the allegation of the complainant is genuine and as there is no contrary evidence we presume that the phone was defective in warranty period and the 3rd opposite party who was the authorized service centre or first opposite party, the manufacturer, has defaulted in rendering proper service to the complainant by curing the defect. As the phone was faulty within one year the 1st opposite party also is liable for manufacturing defective product and the 2nd opposite party is liable for selling defective products to the customer. Issues are found in favour of the complainant.
Hence we allowed complaint vide the following order :-
- The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are directed to give a brand new mobile phone with same specifications to the complainant failing which to give the purchased amount Rs.20,500/- to the complainant along with interest of 9% from 07.08.2021 till realization of the amount.
- All the opposite parties are directed to give Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant jointly and severally.
The order shall be complied within 30 days failing which the compensation amount shall carry an interest of 9% from the date of receipt of copy of the order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of January, 2023.
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member sd/-
Sri. Manulal.V.S, President sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant.
A1- Copy of invoice dated 07/08/2021.
A2- Copy of service record dated 16/06/2022.
A3- Copy of service record dated 06/07/2022.
A4- Copy of service order dated 29.07.2022.
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite parties
Nil
By order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
