Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/32/2022

Sathish Kumar. C - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, Rep. by Authorised Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

Sathish Kumar. C

08 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed: 17.12.2021

Date of Reservation    : 13.07.2022

Date of Order             : 08.08.2022

 

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.32/2022

MONDAY, THE 8^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

SathishKumar.C,

No.50/43, City Link Road,

Guindy,

Chennai – 600 032.                                                           ... Complainant     

..Vs..

 

M/s Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited,

Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited Building,

Orchild. Block E, Embassy Tech Village,

Marathahalli Outer Ring Road,

Devarabisanahalli,

Bengaluru 560 103.                                                     ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : C.Sathish Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : Exparte

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Complainant,  we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays for replacement of defective TV with new TV and direct the Opposite Party to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service, negligent of duty, mental agony and sufferings and direct the Opposite Party to pay the legal cost incurred by the Complainant amounting to Rs.30,000/-.

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

                The Complainant has purchased MI Horizon 32-inch television from Opposite Party and delivered Via Blue Dart Courier Service, on 09.11.2021 by bill Invoice No C027576006284053 dated 06.11.2021 at Rs 15,499/-. The product was installed on 15.11.2021 (MI Install Token No: M2863322) Before installing TV the authorized person opened the seal and plugged the TV, at that time TV worked properly after installing a wall mount TV Screen worked properly and authorized person had taken a photo and started fitting the wall mount Screw and after that TV Changed into Dots and the Complainant took a photo with dots using his mobile and the person who installed switched off the TV and turned on TV after few minutes and it shown single dot on above right corner and the authorized person advised him that if the issue continues then to complain the repair department who would replace the defective TV, and after next day night it shown 7 dots on TV so the Complainant called the person who installed to make a complaint to MI Repair Department. From inception of purchase of aforesaid smart television, the set were of technical defect ultimately visualization of television is said to be worse. The Complainant immediately approached the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party (Repair Token No: M2913174) technical person came to repair the TV and technical person saw the TV and simply told Display Broken inside without display scratches and Opposite Party  technical person told he will talk to his higher team and he told that they will replace TV by two days.  After next day of TV Repair the Complainant called to MI Toll free number and explained his grief and they gave another number to contact and further the Complainant called to that number at 7 PM who told to call at 10 AM. The technical person of Opposite Party told without scratches TV inner display cannot be broken so it will be manufacturing problem and so technical person of Opposite Party told he will replace the TV within two days and Opposite Party had cheated the Complainant. The Opposite Party has delivered defective smart television set to the Complainant, even though proper time given to Opposite Party to repair or replacement of TV, the Opposite Party has failed to make proper service or replacement thus warranted for deficiency in service. The Complainant himself Advocate so Complainant sent a legal Notice on 24.11.2021 and Opposite Party received the legal Notice on 26.11.2021 and no reply for Legal Notice given by Complainant/Advocate. 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-5 were marked.    

4.     The Opposite Parties did not appear before this Commission even after  notice was served on them. Hence the Opposite Party was set exparte

 

5.     Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

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

6.      Point No.1

        On perusal of Ex.A-1, it is evident that on 09.11.2021 the Complainant had purchased a TV for a sum of Rs.15,499/- from the  Opposite Party. The contention of the Complainant  is that the Opposite Party had installed the TV on 15.11.2021, while installing the TV, it worked properly and the person who installed took a photo and after that while fitting the wall mount screw the TV was showing dots, the installation person switched the TV and turned on, after few minutes TV showed single dot on above right corner, the authorised person advised the Complainant that if the issue continues, to make a complaint to the repair department who would replace the defective TV.  The next day TV showed 7 dots. The Complainant had made a complaint to the MI repair department vide Token No.M291313174, a technical person came for repair and saw the TV and said that display is broken inside. Thereafter when contacted, the technical person of Opposite Party told that without scratches inner display of TV cannot be broken and hence it would be a manufacturing defect. Even after repeated requests the Opposite Party neither repaired nor replaced the TV. Hence as per Ex.A-4 a legal notice dated 24.11.2021 was sent to the Opposite party, even after receipt of the notice, Ex.A-5 the Opposite Party failed to respond. Neither the Opposite Party appeared before this Commission inspite of notice served on them and remained exparte.

The act of the Opposite Party in not repairing or replacing the TV which showed defects immediately after its purchase by the Complainant  inspite of the complaints and notice to the Opposite Party clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant.

7.     Point No.2 and 3:-

We have discussed and decided that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency in service. Therefore the Opposite Party is liable to replace a new TV for the defective TV  and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for  deficiency in service and also for the hardship and mental agony caused to the Complainant, along with cost of Rs.3000/-. Accordingly, Point Nos 2 and 3 are answered.  

In the result this complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to  replace a new TV  for the defective TV  and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards compensation for  deficiency in service and also for the hardship and mental agony caused to the Complainant, along with cost of Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand Only), within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the Complainant is entitled to recover the above amounts along with interest @ 6 % per annum 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  8^th 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	06.11.2021	Copy of Invoice Bill
Ex.A2	15.11.2021	Copy of TV defect photo while installing
Ex.A3	-	Copy of Repair token snapshot
Ex.A4	24.11.2021	Copy of Legal Notice by Complainant/Advocate
Ex.A5	26.11.2021	Copy of Acknowledgement of Legal Notice

 

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

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                  B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT