Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/127/2022

Mr.C.Kannabhiran,S/o.N.Chandrasekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobile Square,Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

08 Feb 2024

ORDER

Complaint presented on  :06.09.2022 

 Date of disposal            :08.02.2024

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town,

Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.           : PRESIDENT

                                         TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,         : MEMBER-I

                                         THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.127/2022

  DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 8^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024

                                

Mr.C.Kannabhiran(a)Kanna,

S/o.N.Chandrasekar,

No-53/35 Chinnababu Street, 1^st floor,

Nammalwarpet, Chennai-600 012.

                                                                                             …..Complainant

..Vs..

 

1. The Manager

Mobile Square

No-12 Hunters road, Doveton Purasaiwalkam,

Chennai-600 007.

 

 

2.The Legal Manager,

Mr.Debapratim Roy

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited

Address- Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Building

Orchid, Block E,Embassy Tech Village

Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahalli

• .....Opposite Parties

 

 

Counsel for Complainant              : M/s.C.Kannabhiran (party in person)

Counsel for Opposite parties      : Exparte

 

ORDER

 

TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E., MEMBER-I

 

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant as against the opposite parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 praying to direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for mental harassment and torture, to refund Rs.11,499/- being the cost of the Mobile and also to refund the service charge of Rs.1200/- and other costs.

 

1.Complaint in Brief

The complainant stated that he purchased a REDMI 9 Power mobile phone front the 1st opposite party o 18th February 2021.When the mobile phone worked well for one year it started to reboot once after the complainant started to update the software. The compliant approached the 1st opposite party on 22-04-2022 to rectify the erring mobile phone but the 1st opposite party advised to change the battery of the phone. The complainant later approached the 1st opposite party on 13-05-2022 and the battery was changed and the complainant was

charged Rs.1200/- for the service and gave a 3 month warranty .But a week after the changing of battery the same rebooting error occurred and the complainant approached the 1st opposite party on 19-05-2022 demanding to service the phone upto his satisfaction or provide him a new mobile phone. The 1st opposite party denied to provide him a new mobile phone but promised to refund the battery cost but the complainant declined the offer and raised a grievance with the 2nd opposite party who inturn acknowledged that the 1st opposite party was not an authorised service center and guided the compliant to visit their authorised service centre at Aynavaram, where the complainant was informed that the mobile phone was mishandled by unauthorised technician hence the phone was not working and that it would cost almost the price of a new phone to service the disputed phone. The complainant served legal notice on the 1st and also on the 2nd opposite party for not taking action on the 1st opposite party who was not authorized for servicing the MI phones . The complainant stated that he had raised his grievance in the State and National Grievance Helpline but nothing turned in favour of the compliant. Hence, filed a complaint in this commission praying to refund the cost of phone and service and further compensation.  

 

 

 

 

Points for consideration

 

1.Whether there is any Deficiency in Service by the opposite parties?

2.Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of cost of the phone and service charges and compensation as alleged in the complaint. If so ,to what extent?

 

The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to A13 are marked on their side.  The Opposite parties remained exparte.

Point No:1

1) As per complaint, the complainant had purchased a REDMI 9 Power mobile phone from 1st opposite party who was a mobile phone dealer, seller and service provider of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant submitted that on 21-04-2022 when he tried to update regular system software, the mobile phone started rebooting automatically. The complainant also submitted that he approached the 1st opposite party on 22-04-2022 to rectify the rebooting issue and when the technician checked the device, the battery had to be changed so as to solve the issue in the mobile phone was informed. The complainant further submitted that, based on the 1st opposite party’s advice he approached the 1st opposite party on 13-05-2022 and requested for change of battery. The complainant alleges that the 1st opposite party changed the battery at a cost of Rs.1200/- and promised a warranty of 3 months. The complainant also alleged that within a week after change of battery the new battery was draining rapidly and took double the time than usual for charging. The complainant further alleged that when he tried to restart the phone, the phone got completely switched off and hence did not turn on thereafter. He had alleged that based on this issue he  approached the 1st opposite party for the 2nd time on 19-05-2022 where the technician checked the  mobile phone which failed to restart but on connecting the charger the mobile phone displayed charging indicator, and hence the 1st opposite party had requested him to come after 2 days and hence the complaint had approached the 1st opposite party but on 21-05-2022 the technician replaced the new battery with the old battery and informed the complainant that the mobile phone failed to work. It is further alleged by the complainant that he enquired about the display of charging indication shown on 19-05-2022 and further requested to return the mobile phone in working condition, the 1st opposite party service person failed to give any reasonable answer but had defended that the mobile phone was Chinese electronic product and cannot be recovered .

2) Based on the above allegation  the complainant sent a grievance email to  the 2nd opposite party on 30-05-2022 who inturn replied vide email dated  31-05-2022 that the 1st opposite party was an unauthorised service centre and further  adviced the complainant to visit the MI service centre at Aynavaram on 18-06-2022 where he was informed that the 1st opposite party who previously serviced the mobile was not authorized to the 2nd opposite party. It is further submitted that the 2nd opposite party’s Authorized service centre at Aynavaram  inspected the mobile phone and informed the complainant that the 1st opposite party has opened and damaged the internal main board seal, the fingerprint scanner, main board, battery and all spares were repaired and damaged , hence would cost Rs.8727/- to service the mobile which was almost the cost of the mobile. He further averred that the 1st opposite party failed disclose that he was not authorized to the 2nd opposite party.

3) The 1st opposite party had failed to specify the battery serial number in the Invoice issued by them on 13-05-2022 which had a note of 3 months warranty. But the battery was sold to him at a price of Rs.1200/- which was comparatively higher than the original price of Rs.699/- mentioned in the MI service centre and also that the 1st opposite party advertisement board “MI preferred partner” was a misleading advertisement and there were no indication in the Invoice which is marked as Ex.A2 that the 1st opposite party was only an authorized seller of 2nd opposite party and not a service centre .The complainant has submitted that a grievance complaint in National Consumer Helpline vide complaint No.3671238 dated 19-07-2022 and an email complaint was registered with the State Consumer Helpline and Commissioner of Civil Supplies dated 21-07-22. Notices to the 1st opposite party by email from the National Consumer helpline and State Consumer helpline remained unanswered.

4) It is also alleged that the mobile phone which was submitted at the 2nd opposite party’s service centre at aynavaram on 18-06-2022 remained with them and when the complainant requested for estimate for service the 2nd opposite party informed that it was in the custody of the service centre and that the compliant has to approach them for the estimate and hence the complainant visited the service centre to know the cost of service which was Rs.8727/-under MI service inspection Sheet number-WXIN220618001852 dated 18-06-2022. After verifying the 2nd opposite party website the complainant got to know that the REDMI 9 POWER mobile phone was no more available for sales in 2022 and the model had been changed to REDMI 10 POWER and hence the disputed model REDMI 9 POWER suffered a manufacturing defect hence that model has been changed. The complainant has alleged to have sent legal notice to both the opposite parties for which the 2nd opposite party failed neither to reply nor respond. The 1st opposite party replied that the mobile phone’s CPU got dead after restarting and that they were ready to refund the cost of the battery .The complainant has submitted to have demanded a  new mobile phone along with refund of service cost which was denied by the 1st opposite party and hence the receipt of this complaint.

5) Perused documents, the complainant had purchased a Xiomi Redmi 9 Power mobile Phone vide payment of Rs.11499/- under Tax invoice :MS/TN/2102180038 dated 18-02-2021 from 1st opposite party with a warranty for 1 year as found in ExA1 and the said mobile phone was serviced by the 1st opposite party on 13-05-2022 vide service charge Rs.1200/- and the mobile battery was changed as found in ExA2. On 21-04-2022 when the complainant tried to update the phone, the phone continuously rebooted and hence visited the 1st opposite party where the phone was repaired and the phone worked well for 2 weeks subsequently when the same problem arose the complainant had approached the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party replaced the battery with a 3 month warranty assurance, same is evident from email conversation found in ExA2, ExA3 and email ExA12. After change of battery the phone worked fine for a week and the complainant had approached the 1st opposite party once again as the problem persisted even before expiry of 3 month warranty period and the 1st opposite party alleged to have mishandled the phone on the second visit which failed to restart thereafter. The 1st opposite party stated the issue as CPU problem and promised to refund the cost of battery purchased from them but the same offer was declined by the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the 1st opposite party has not mentioned the battery model and serial no. in the bill marked in ExA2. Further, as per ExA3 the Email dated 17-06-2022 the 2nd opposite party advised the complainant to visit the nearest MI Service Centre .The Service particulars of the phone submitted by the 2nd opposite party mentions as “Does not boot” and “OOW CID”. The 1st opposite party admits that the mobile phone suffered only a booting error but was working when it was handed over to them. Observing the 2nd opposite party report in ExA5 dated 18-06-2022 the 1st opposite party has mishandled the phone in an unauthorized technique and also that the 3 month warranty was not fulfilled. Meanwhile, the complainant's allegation that the Model Redmi 9 Power model was not available subsequently after a year of purchase which is due to the manufacturing defect is not tenable as the complainant has not submitted any material evidence to establish the same. The complainant had registered his grievance through online portal in National Consumer Helpline found in ExA6 and the notice sent to 1st opposite party from the State Consumer Helpline and the complainant’s grievance letter email dated 22-07-2022 is found in ExA7. The legal notice served by the complainant on the 1st and 2nd opposite party dated 10-08-2022 and  11-08-2022 are found in ExA9 and ExA10 respectively. In the reply email sent by the 1st opposite party dated 13-08-2022 marked as ExA12 the 1st opposite party admits that the ‘Preferred Partner’ board was only for sales and not for service centre and had not mentioned as authorized MI Service centre even in the bill furnished for change of battery.

 6) The 1st opposite party further admits that the mobile phone was handed over to him 13th and 18th of May 2022 when they changed the battery for the disputed mobile and the same is evident vide service report ExA2. Being not an Authorized Service Personnel the 1st opposite party instead of referring the complainant to an Authorized Service centre had repaired the handset and changed the battery during which there is possibility of mishandling the mobile by the 1^st opposite party which had led to the complete disfunction of the mobile phone and the same is evident in 2nd opposite party’s MI Inspection Report ExA5. Complainant failed to produce any expert evidence to prove any inherent defect or manufacturing defects. If mobile had any defect it would not have worked well for more than a year. Hence the complaint is not maintainable against the 2nd opposite party as they have taken all measures. However, the 1st opposite party's wrongful service has ended in non functioning of the phone and thereby the complainant was put to mental agony and hardship which has driven him to approach the 2^nd opposite party for necessary repair to the mobile phone and the complainant is not entitled for the cost of the mobile phone as he had used the phone for more than a year. From the facts discussed above it is evident that there is Deficiency in service on the 1st opposite party. Point No.1 answered accordingly.

Point No. 2

Based on findings in Point No.1, Since there is deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.1200/- and also entitled for Rs.15000/- for mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant from the 1^st opposite party and also Rs.3000/- towards cost of the complaint. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

 

In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The 1st Opposite Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1200/- and also liable to pay Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony, hardship and also to pay Rs.3,000/- towards cost of this complaint.  The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within two months of the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order to till the date of payment. The complaint against 2nd opposite party is dismissed.

 

 Dictated by Member-I to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 8^th February 2024.

 

MEMBER I                         MEMBER – II                       PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	18.02.2021	Invoice –Purchase
Ex.A2	13.05.2022	Invoice-Service
Ex.A3	31.05.2022 14.06.2022 17.06.2022	E-mail sent by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A4	18.06.2022	Mi Service Order
Ex.A5	18.06.2022	Mi Inspection Sheet/Estimate Bill
Ex.A6	19.07.2022	National Consumer Helpline Complaint
Ex.A7	22.07.2022	State Consumer Helpline-Email
Ex.A8	30.07.2022	Legal Notice-1st opposite party
Ex.A9	10.08.2022	Email sent by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A10	11.08.2022	Legal notice-2nd opposite party
Ex.A11	01.08.2022 16.08.2022	India Post Delivery/Acknowledgement
Ex.A12	13.08.2022 To 22.08.2022	Email sent by the 1st opposite party and CC email attached to the second opposite party
Ex.A13		Misleading Advertisement Picture

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY:

No documents

 

 

MEMBER – I                       MEMBER – II                      PRESIDENT