Complaint filed on: 15.11.2016

                                                                                                                             Complaint Disposed on:05.12.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.

COMPLAINT NO.105/2016

DATED THIS THE 05^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

:PRESENT:

HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., PGDCLP -MEMBER

HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:

Mohammed Rafiq,

S/o Sri Muneer Saheb,

R/o Kesarike Village,

Hosalli Pet Post,

Chikmagalur Taluk.

(By Sri/Smt. Halekote A.Thejaswi, Advocate)

V/s

OPPONENT:

1. M/s Silicon Mobiles,

    Rep. by its Proprietor/

    Managing partner,

    Mobile Sales & Service,

    Vysya Hostel Building,

    I.G.Road, Chikmagalur-577101.

2. The Proprietor/Managing Partner,

    XIAOMI INDIA, C/o Ikeva Business

    Centre, 8^th floor, Umiya business,

    Bay tower-1, Cessna Business park,

    Kadubeeranahalli, Marathahalli,

    Sarjapura outer Ring road,

    Bangalore-560103.

3. The Managing Director,

    XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA

    Pvt. Ltd., By rising stars mobile

    India Pvt. Ltd., 380 Belerica

    Road, Sri.City Siddam Agraharam

    Village, Varadaiahpalem mandal,

    Chittoor Dist, Andra Pradesh-517541.

(OP Nos.1 By Sri.L.P.Sathish, advocate)

(OP Nos.2 & 3 -Exparte)

By Hon’ble Member Smt B.U.Geetha,

:O R D E R:

The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP 1 to 3 alleging unfair trade practice in selling a defective mobile handset. Hence, prays for direction against Op 1 to 3 to replace the defective mobile handset with a new one or in alternative to refund an amount of Rs.7,700/- towards purchase of the mobile handset along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is that:

        The complainant has purchased REDMI-MI mobile handset from Op1 on 09.05.2016 for sum of Rs.7,700/- vide receipt no.140. Within 3 months from the date of purchase, the said mobile handset was not working properly, it suffers from so many defects such as speaker, audio problem, hanging problem, battery backup, uses to switch off automatically and emitting excess heat, etc., In this regard, complainant had approached Op 1 to get it repair or replace the mobile handset with a new one, but Op 1 has returned the mobile handset without repairing and behaved arrogantly. Inspite of repeated requests and demands made by complainant, the Op 1 refused to replace or repair the handset. Hence, complainant has got issued a letter dated 19.10.2016 to the Ops and called upon them either to replace or to repair the defective mobile handset within 7 days from the receipt of the letter. The said letter was served on Ops, for which Ops have neither replied nor complied with the said letter. Hence, complainant prays for direction against Ops to replace the defective mobile handset with a new one or in alternative to refund an amount of Rs.7,700/- towards purchase of the mobile handset along with interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant as prayed above.

3. Notice issued by this Hon’ble Forum to Op 1 to 3 was served. Op 1 appeared through his counsel and filed version. The Op 2 and 3 have not appeared before this Hon’ble Forum to take any defence. Hence, Op 2 and 3 placed exparte.

4. Op 1 in his version has stated that, complainant is a customer of this Op and he admitted that complainant has purchased mobile handset for sum of Rs.7,700/- from this Op. He denied all the further averments of complaint that, within the 3 months from the date of purchase, the said mobile handset was not working properly, it suffered from defects such as speaker, audio problem, hanging problem, battery backup, uses to switch off automatically and emitting excess heat, etc., are all false. He also stated that these problems are not at all the manufacturing defect and these problems occurs due to mishandling, over usage, virus attack and overload problem and also due to poor network. He further stated that, while releasing any mobile handset it will be tested in various process and after completion of all the test, it will be released to the market. He also denied that, complainant has approached the Op 1 to repair or to replace the said mobile handset, but Op 1 has returned the said handset without rectifying the problem and behaved arrogantly. Hence, the mobile handset is not having any manufacturing defect. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.5 and mobile handset marked as M.O.1. Op No.1 flied affidavit and no documents marked.

6.     Heard the arguments.                        

7.     In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of Op 1 to 3 in selling defective mobile handset to the complainant?
2. Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?

8.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

1. Point No.1: Affirmative.
2. Point No.2: As per Order below. 

: R E A S O N S :

POINT NOs. 1 & 2:

9. It is proved as per Ex.P.1 - cash paid receipt, the complainant had purchased REDMI-MI mobile handset from Op 1 by paying Rs.7,700/-. It is clearly observed that, the mobile handset having manufacturing defect. For that, the complainant wrote a 2 letters dated 19.10.2016 to Op 1 and 2 which is marked as Ex.P.2 and 3, in which complainant called upon the Op 1 and 2 to repair the mobile handset. The said letter is duly served on Op1, but Op 1 neither replied nor complied with the letter. Op 2 and 3 have not appeared before this Forum to defend their case. Hence, Op 1 and 2 have accepted that the handset sold to the complainant is having manufacturing defect. Inspite of memo filed by Op 1, he has not taken mobile handset for rectifying any defects. Therefore, we consider Op 1 to 3 have rendered unfair trade practice in selling defective mobile handset to the complainant. Op 1 is the seller is responsible for replacement of the mobile handset with a new one, if he fails to do so, he is liable to refund the price amount of the said mobile handset to the complainant and Op 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- each  and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- each to the complainant.  As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-  

: O R D E R :

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
2. OP No.1 is directed to replace the defective mobile handset with a new one having no defects, if he fails to replace the mobile handset he is directed to refund an amount of Rs.7,700/- towards purchase of the mobile handset to the complainant.
3. Further Op 1 to 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand Rupees) each for unfair trade practice and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand Rupees) each to the complainant within one month, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.
4. Send free copies of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 5^th day of December 2017).

  (B.U.GEETHA)         (H.MANJULA)      (RAVISHANKAR)

      Member                   Member                President

ANNEXURES

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant/S:

Ex.P.1              - Cash paid receipt.

Ex.P.2              - Letter dtd:19.10.2016.

Ex.P.3             - Letter to Op 2.

Ex.P.4              - Postal Ack. Due.

Ex.P.5              - Postal Endorsement.

Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:

NIL

Dated:05.12.2017                          Member 

                                        District Consumer Forum,

                                                  Chikmagalur.            

RMA