Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/186/2019

Kandasubburaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s MI Home - Opp.Party(s)

S Kumaran

23 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 03.07.2019

Date of Reservation      : 05.08.2022

Date of Order               : 23.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,   : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.186 /2019

TUESDAY, THE 23^rd DAY OF AUGUST 2022

Mr.Kandasubburaj.R,

S/o. Ramiah,

No.116/A, Mahaveer Street,

Sathya Nagar, Padi Post,

Chennai-600 05.                                                                                                                                                                 ... Complainant                       

 

..Vs..

1. Mi Home,

     Unit No 208, 2^nd Floor,

     Forum Mall, Arcot road,

     Vadapalani, Chennai-600028

 

 

2. M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited,

    Represented by Mr.Manu Kumar Jain Managing Director,

   "Orchid(Block E), Ground Floor to 4th Floor Embassy Tech Village,

    Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road,

    Bangalore, Karnataka-560103.                                                                                                                                   ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. S. Kumaran

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : Exparte

       

On perusal of records and on endorsement made by the Complainant to treat the written arguments as oral arguments, we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

1. The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to provide a new phone model with the equivalent value of the money already paid by him or to refund the entire amount of Rs.21,000/- paid by the Complainant with interest@18% p.a from the date of purchase till realization and to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation for consequential damages and mental agony along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The 1^st Opposite Party is running a store in the name of Mi Home at Unit No 208, 2nd Floor, Forum mall, Arcot road, Vadapalani, Chennai-600028 and understands that is one of the direct outlet of the Second Opposite Party. The Second Opposite Party is the manufacturer of Mi Mobile Phones. He visited the showroom of 1^st  Opposite Party, for purchasing a MI POCO F1 mobile phone He paid Rs 19999 (for the phone) and 999 (for Mi Protect)=total Rs.20998. He purchased the said phone for his son - K Keasuv, who was leaving abroad for studies. The billing was done in the name of K Kesauv with contact mobile number as 8870696177. He was asked to effect payment and it was informed that then only the instrument will be delivered. Thus after payment the person in the billing desk acted like opening the sealed box. However the seal was tampered earlier itself. before he intervened the box was given to a Mi Home technician for demo, however the mobile did not switch on even after repeated attempt by the technician and though the instrument was put on charge for a long time the mobile failed to switch on.  The instrument seems to be an old one (already opened) and also defective and that he had no confidence on the originality since the box was already open with tampered seal. The manufacturing date also was Aug 2018. He requested to change the piece, on the contrary the store staff turned deaf ears and without heeding to his demand he started to explain the terms and conditions of the sale. It is pertinent to point out that the first bill which was generated did not have the terms and conditions and the store management took back the bill from him and printed another bill with terms and conditions mentioned at the bottom of the bill. Having paid money for a new mobile phone, is entitled to get a fresh piece (in a sealed box) which is in working condition and not for a defective mobile from the showroom. The staff of 1^st opposite party was not listening and mentioned that it is their procedure and it is customer's fate to accept that product. Left with no other option he did not receive the mobile and left the store. Both the instrument and bill copy is in the possession of the showroom of first opposite party. He reported the incident to MI India customer support immediately on 17^th Feb 2019 itself and thereafter many times. The complaint reference numbers were WOIN201902 900362, WOIN2019021700385 WOIN2019022700132. Till date no concrete action from Mi India. The instrument is in the custody of Mi Home, Vadapalani, Chennai and it is not bothered either to provide the new instrument or the bill copy. Further damage to him was the instructions from the customer support to go behind the Mi service centre for a DOA letter. No fault on him why he should go behind every one for the cheating done by MI Home. He  wanted to purchase the mobile for his son's use and the purpose got defeated as he left for China on 22^nd Feb 2019 morning. However he was forced to spend another 23000 rupees to get another mobile (Poco F1 128 GB from another Mi Home on 21 Feb 2019) instrument for his use. The several e-mail communications were sent to the Second opposite party - Customer care web site, no concrete remedial measure was initiated and instead reply mail was sent to the Complainant asking to take the instrument to any of Mi service centre and get a DOA – Dead-on-Arrival Letter from them and produce the same along with the instrument. This suggestion /act by the first and second Opposite Parties is totally unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.

3.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4  were marked.   

4.    The Opposite Parties did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice served on them, were called absent and set exparte.

5.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice committed by the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No 1:-

    On Careful reading of the Complaint and Exhibits Marked in support of the Complaint, it is clear from Ex.A-2, E-Mail Communications dated 18.02.2019,19.02.2019,26.02.2019 and 27.02.2019 exchanged between Complainant and the 2^nd Opposite party that a complaint regarding purchase of a M1 POCO F1 Mobile for his son who had planned to visit China, from the 1^st Opposite Party shop in which seal of the pack found to be tampered and the mobile phone could not be switched on inspite of several attempts made. Since the 1^st Opposite party tried to sell a defective mobile to the Complainant, he had not received the device as well as the bill the 2^nd Opposite party had kept on insisted to approach any of their MI service Centre and to get Deed on Arrival Letter (DOA) from them and to produce the letter with Instrument, when it was clearly mentioned the mobile phone was with the 1^st Opposite Party, who had never cared to deliver the same with the Bill. As there was no proper response from the 2^nd Opposite Party, the Complainant was constrained to send a notice dated 02.03.2019 to the 2^nd Opposite party, as found in Ex.A-1 explaining all the facts and happenings and requested to take action as well as to provide a New phone, Since there was no response, he was constrained to send a legal notice dated 03.05.2019 to both the Opposite parties, inspite of receipt of the said legal notice as found in Ex.A-3 & Ex.A-4, the Opposite parties did not responded.

On discussions made above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the 1^st & 2^nd Opposite party had acted lethargically and negligently without considering the nature of issue raised before them, hence we hold that the having tried to sell a defective Mobile and by not attending the genuine issue of the Complainant, the act of 1^st & 2^nd Opposite parties are of gross negligence and thereby made the Complainant to undergo serious mental agony. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite party had Committed unfair trade practice. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos. 2 and 3:-

      As discussed and decided point No.1 against the Opposite parties, the Opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and Severally are liable to refund a sum of Rs.21,000/- being the cost of M1 POCO F1 Mobile with MI Protect together with Interest @ 9% Per annum from 17.02.2019 to till the date of the order and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards unfair trade practice and mental agony along with cost of Rs.3000/- to the Complainant. And the Complainant is not entitled for any relief/s. Accordingly Point No.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Only) being the cost of MI POCO F1 Mobile with MI Protect, together with interest @9% p.a from the date of purchase, i.e., from 17.02.2019 till the date of this order, and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards unfair trade practice and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards cost,  within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing compliance  the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 23^rd day of August 2022.  

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	02.03.2019	Copy of demand notice sent by complainant
Ex.A2	-	Copy of emails communications between Complainant & Opposite Party
Ex.A3	13.05.2019	Copy of lawyer Notice sent to Opposite Parties
Ex.A4	14.05.2019	Copy of proof of service of lawyer Notice on the Opposite Parties

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT