BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

20^th DAY OF MAY 2016

O R D E R

SMT. SHANTHA P.K, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to generate a duplicate invoice copy with his name and IMEI number of the device mentioned in the bill and to pay him Rs.6,000/- as repair charges.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant purchased Mi 4i phone with accidental coverage from online store of Mi and he received the bill where IMEI number was not mentioned in it.  Complainant called the Mi claim department i.e., OP for accidental coverage they told him to get a duplicate copy of the bill where his name along with IMEI number of the device.  When the complainant called to the Mi customer service and asked for the duplicate bill to generate with his name and IMEI number of the device, they told the complainant to wait for a week, because it will take time to generate a duplicate bill.  But finally they told the complainant that duplicate invoice copy cannot be generated.  After few days, complainant got a mail from OP that the documents are in order and they will be sending their executive to pick up the damaged handset.  Complainant did not see any action was taken from OP.  He called the OP regarding his handset to get repaired.  OP told the complainant that the mail was system generated and by mistake sent to the complainant.

For the aforesaid reasons, complainant prayed to generate a duplicate invoice copy with his name and IMEI number of the device mentioned in the bill and to pay him Rs.6,000/- as repair charges.

 3. Notice of complaint was issued to OP and despite service of notice, OP failed to appear and contest the complaint and has been placed ex-parte.  Thereafter, the complainant filed his affidavit by way of evidence.  Heard the arguments advanced by the complainant.

4. Perused the averments made in the complaint, affidavit filed in lieu of oral evidence, documents filed by the complainant and other materials placed on record.

5. Admittedly the complainant purchased Mi 4i Dark Grey 16G mobile through online on 27.11.2015 for a sum of Rs.12,374/- with accidental coverage claim.  The complainant has produced the bill to that effect.  OP has not mentioned the IMEI number in the said bill.  Complainant called the OP for accidental coverage.  The OP told the complainant to get a duplicate copy of the bill where his name along with IMEI number of the device should be mentioned from Mi customer service centre.

6. After few days OP sent a mail to the complainant that his documents are in order and they will be sending their executive to pickup his damaged handset.  There was no action from OP side.  When the complainant called OP regarding his handset to get repaired the OP told the complainant that the mail was system generated and by mistake sent to him.  This shows the gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Complainant has produced the e-mail correspondence.  Though the phone is in warranty period and is entitled to get accidental claim, the complaint did not get any claim.  The complainant was very much unhappy with the product and service.  The material placed on record by the complainant also goes to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The OP did not appear and contest the claim of the complainant. 

7.  We don’t find any reasons to disbelieve the allegations made in the complaint as well as the sworn testimony of the complainant.  The evidence led-in by the complainant stands unchallenged.  The very fact of OP not contesting the proceedings leads us to draw an inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainant.  We are satisfied that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service against the OP.  Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be allowed.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

       O R D E R

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part.  OP is directed to give a duplicate invoice copy in the name of complainant with IMEI number of the same device within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which OP shall pay to complainant the price of the handset i.e., Rs.12,374/-.  Further OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service on their part together with litigation costs of Rs.2,000/-.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.            

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 20^th day of May 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

COMPLAINT No.126/2016

Complainant                 -        Abinash Sahoo,
                             Bangalore-560037.

                                          -vs-

Opposite Party              -        Mi India Corporate Office,
                  Bangalore.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 16.04.2016.

1. Sri. Abinash Sahoo.

   Witnesses examined on behalf of OP – Nil.

   Documents produced by the OP - Nil

MEMBER                           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln*