Kerala

Idukki

CC/176/2023

Nithin Gopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mihome (xiaoMy technology india pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

21 Feb 2024

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :04/10/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 21^st day of February 2024

Present :

              SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                                               PRESIDENT

              SRI.AMPADY K.S.                                                        MEMBER

CC NO.176/2023

Between

Complainant                         : Nithin Gopal,

                                                Chemmandoor House, Kurumbalamattom,

                                                Karimannoor, Thodupuzha, Idukki District,

                                                Kerala, Pin – 685 581

                                                           And

Opposite Parties           :  The Manager,

                                         MI Home (XIAOMI Technology India Private  

                                         Limited (MI INDIA)), G35, Prozone Mall,

                                         Saravanampatty Road, Ganesh Nagar,

                                         Revenue Nagar, Saravanampatty,

                                         Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu – 641 035.

                                                              

O R D E R

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

This Complaint is filed under S.35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 raising the following allegations against opposite party:-

 

1 .Complainant recently visited Coimbatore and bought a Redmi Note PRO 8 GB-256 GB (ONYX BLACK) on 01/06/2023 from MI HOME (XIAOMI Technology India (P) Ltd.,) inside Prozone Mall, Coimbatore by paying Rs.27,999/-.  Order was placed by his brother Naveen Gopal with order No.SA1236512271214822.  Concerned Invoice Number is 23OM33IN00002911 (E-2).  There was a scratch over the  inner lens of camera module which was inside the back cover and it is not easily visible without torchlight.  Hence he could not notice it at the time of purchase.  As the scratch was over inner lens which cannot be accessible to anyone without opening the back cover.

 

2 . On 06/06/2023, he raised a replacement request (HHIN 2306060000096) to authorised service centre.  As per replacement policy, 10 days were allowed.  On inspection, technician at the service centre accepted it as manufacturing defect and took photos and videos of the product.  They told him that in order to process replacement approval of their higher authorities is necessary.  On the next day during his visit to service centre, they informed that replacement request was declined as the defect is due to physical damage caused by him and replacement is not possible.  He once again placed request and higher authorities declined the same.

3 . On 08/06/2023, he contacted MI India support via twitter and they directed him to contact the service centre and promised the issue will be resolved by 19/06/2023.  Technicians accepted the defect but higher authorities won’t accept it.  

4 . On 19/06/2023, he contacted them via twitter and declined the replacement request stating that damage was caused by him.  Higher authorities are doing this without physically examining the device and they were blaming him.  They were delaying his request to deny replacement stating 10 days are over now.

5 . On 21/06/2023, he registered a complaint via National Consumer Helpline and grievance No.4648579.  Company added remark on 22/06/2023 saying that they are working on his case with service 10XQ000375353.

6 . As the motherboard of his previous mobile phone Redmi Note 5 PRO got damaged he bought the present new phone.  He entrusted his old phone for repair at the above mentioned service centre on 24/06/2023 and got it back on 28/06/2023 after repairs.  On 29/06/2023 company added remark under his grievance No.4648579 which related to replacement of phone in question saying” as per investigation, customer handset repair completed on 28/06/2023 with service ID WXIN 2306240005860.  This ID relates to the repair of his old phone mentioned herein above.  By adding the above remarks, company closed his grievance No.4648579 of  Redmi Note 12 PRO.  They cheated him and consumer helpline by giving fake remarks.  As he registered complaint within 10 days replacement time, repair of the phone is not acceptable.  He doesn’t want repaired phone as the same was purchased by paying Rs.27,999/-.

So, he prayed for the following reliefs.

1 . Direct opposite party to replace the defective phone with a new one as soon as possible and deliver the new phone to the authorised service centre at Thodupuzha.

2 . Grant compensation for the negligence of the company in resolving the issue.

Registered notice sent to opposite party was returned with postal endorsement “address insufficient”.  On 05/01/2024, complainant was present and submitted that this was the address shown in invoice.  As the notice was sent to correct address, it is declared that there is due notice. Opposite party was not present.  Hence set him exparte.  Proof affidavit filed by complainant read in evidence and 9 documents produced by him were marked as Exts.P1 to P9.

Heard complainant.

We have examined his pleadings and documents produced.  On going through the same, following points arise for consideration.

1 . Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of opposite party?

2 . If so, for what reliefs complainant is entitled to?

3 . Order to be passed?

Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together

On a perusal of pleading, it is seen that his grievance is he found scratch over the inner lens of camera module after few days from the date of purchase and he could not notice it as the inner lens is inside the back cover.  It was not traceable without opening back cover and using torch light.  His claim is that he placed replacement request to authorised service centre of Thodupuzha but they didn’t replace the phone due to the rejection of claim by higher authorities.  He had approached the “MI India Support” also through twitter.  As they had directed him to approach service centre he contacted them.  But service centre replied that higher authorities rejected his request.  Technicians at service centre convinced of the defect.  Later, while he contacted ‘MI Support’, they said that it is a physical damage caused by him.  They have not physically verified the phone.

From the documents produced by complainant, it is found that he placed complaint of phone to authorised service centre.  It is also true that he contacted “MI Support” several times through WhatsApp and they had given reply also.  It is stated in their reply chat dated 11/06/2023 their service team diagnosed a scratch on the camera module.  Hence they are not able to proceed with the replacement.  Later, they replied that upon checking the details, for physical damage, the warranty will be void and directed complainant to approach service centre and they will assist him further in this regard.  In certain WhatsApp chats, words are not legible.  Complainant has not produced warranty card.  On a perusal of tax invoice, it is seen that purchase of phone is by Naveen Gopal. Complainant averred that purchase order was placed by his brother Naveen Gopal.  Complainant has no case that phone was purchased by said Naveen Gopal and given to him by said Naveen Gopal for his use.  But Naveen Gopal is not arrayed as complainant in the present complaint.  His authorization is also not filed.  As manufacturing defect and deficiency in service alleged, complainant is duty bound to prove the same before this Commission.  He has not even produced the mobile phone before the Commission and not taken any earnest efforts to send the phone for testing it and to obtain report.  Without lab report, we cannot come to a conclusion whether the scratch occurred due to manufacturing defect or physical damage.  Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if any defect in product or deficiency in service is alleged, onus of proof lies on the complainant which is not discharged by him in the case on hand.

For the reasons stated herein above, we are of the view that complainant failed to prove manufacturing defect in phone or deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.   Hence we are constrained to dismiss this complaint, however, without any order as to costs.

In the result, complaint is dismissed without costs.

Party shall take back extra copies without delay.

Pronounced by this Commission on this the  21^st day of February 2024.

 

                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                            SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER                                                                                        

                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                               SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 – Photograph of scratch over camera module

Ext.P2 – Purchase E bill dated 01/06/2023.

Ext.P3 – Replacement request dated 06/06/2023

Ext.P4 – Phone service record dated 24/06/2023

Ext.P5 series (2 in Nos) – Chat records between complainant and MI India Support.

Ext.P6 – Screenshot of remarks given by company in National Consumer Helpline.

Ext.P7 – Photocopy of grievance details.

Ext.P8 – Tax invoice dated 01/06/2023

Ext.P9 – Replacement FAQ (All documents are copies)

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

              

                                                                                              Forwarded by Order

  

                                                                                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR