ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI filed a consumer case on 07 Mar 2024 against M/S XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD in the North Consumer Court. The case no is CC/10/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 12 Mar 2024.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)
[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]
Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054
Phone: 011-23969372; 011-23912675 Email: confo-nt-dl@nic.in
Consumer Complaint No.:10/2022
Sh. Ashok Kumar Tiwari
S/o Sh. Hans Raj Tiwari,
4/7, Asaf Ali Road,
Near Delite Cinema,
New Delhi110002. … Complainant
Vs
M/s Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Through its General Manager
Office at:
Ground Floor,
AKR Infinity, Sy. No.113,
Krishna Reddy Industrial Area,
7th Mile, Hosur Road,
Bangalore-560068 (Karnataka) … Opposite Party No.1
BMCA Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Manager
Office at:
F-25, 1st floor,
Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092 … Opposite Party No.2
ORDER
07/03/2024
Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:
1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that the Complainant purchased a MI Smart Band 31, 23631/00064710 vide Invoice No.905/2021-22 dated 13.09.2021 from Lezer Electronics, at 3785, Netaji Subash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 for a sum of Rs. 1,300/- for his son namely Sh. Ayush Tiwari and handed over the same to his son for use, but when his son started using it, it was not working properly and same was also not supported by its charger. The Complainant visited the shop seller to lodge complaint who checked the said product and agreed that the product was having problems as stated by the Complainant.
2. The seller suggested the Complainant to visit the office of the OP- No.2 and the Complainant, due to his busy schedule, visited the OP- No.2 on 14.10.2021, where the attending officer checked the above said product and after some time, the attending officer handed over the said product to the Complainant stating that the above said product is in working condition. The Complainant requested the said attending officer to check the said product again as same was not properly working, but the attending officer assured to the Complainant that he has himself checked the above said product and now the said product is in perfect working condition. Again in the evening of same day i.e. 14.10.2021, the Complainant found that the item was not properly working and on 16.10.2021, the Complainant visited the OP- No.2 and the attending officer the OP- No.2 again checked the product and the Complainant asked the reason of not working of the above said product and further told that attending officer assured the Complainant that the said product was in working condition on 14.10.2021 but the same was not working and officer of the OP- No.2 given false and frivolous assurance to the Complainant on 14.10.2021 then the attending officer the OP- No.2 replied that the above said brand will be checked after the payment of service charges of Rs.118/-. Accordingly, the Complainant paid Rs.118/- to the OP- No.2 on 16.10.2021 and the OP- No.2 checked the said product and given inspection report that the said brand has hard scratch and hard dent in band but the Complainant told the officer of OP- No.2 that he has not used the above said product but the officer the OP- No.2 has given the report of the service record "cannot charge" and refused to replace the above said product though the above said product was under the warranty of six months.
3. It has been alleged that the product i.e. MI Smart Band 31 has been manufactured by OP- No.1 and the warranty of six months is provided by it. The OP- No.1 and the OP- No.2 is jointly and severally, liable for the same and the OP- No.2 has received for a sum of Rs.118/- of the service charges from the Complainant which is against the law and the OP- Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly liable to replace the above said product which was purchased by the Complainant and the OP- No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant for physical and harassment and taking illegal service charges from the Complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 22.10.2021 through his counsel through Speed Post but no response was received. The complainant has filed this complaint praying for passing an order for:-
4. Accordingly, notices were issued to the OPs to defend the complaint before the commission but the OPs neither appeared nor did send any communication despite service of the notice. Since the OPs have chosen not to contest the allegations levelled in the complaint despite service and has been proceeded Ex-parte. The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit. The complainant has filed written arguments and led oral arguments also. The OPs have also not participated in the proceedings of oral arguments.
5. Therefore, the complaint has been examined on the basis of the documents/evidences and material available on records. Since the OPs have chosen not to contest the allegations levelled in the complaint despite service, it is considered as deemed acceptance of the allegations of deficiency of service and harassment to the complainant by the OPs. However, on the perusal of service records and bill of levy of service charge by the Authorised service centre, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer.
6. Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP-1(M/s Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.) to:-
a. refund Rs.1300/- (Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred Only), to the complainant along-with interest @9% from 13-09-2021 till the date of payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
b. refund Rs.118 (Rupees One Hundred eighteen Only) to the complainant along-with interest @9% from 16-10-2021 till the date of payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
c. pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) to the complainant towards the harassment, mental agony, trauma, inconvenience, financial losses and hardship suffered by complainant due to the deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice by collecting service charges on the product during the period of warranty.
7. It is clarified that the aforesaid amount shall be paid by the OP-1 to the Complainant within 30 days failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.
8. The complainant shall return the product in question, to the OP-1 after receipt of the amount as ordered above. The OP-1 shall also be at liberty to recover the amount as ordered above from OP-2 on pro-rata basis.
9. Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.
ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA HARPREET KAUR CHARYA
Member Member
DCDRC-1 (North) DCDRC-1 (North)
DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR
President
DCDRC-1 (North)
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.