Kerala

Idukki

CC/178/2023

K C Joseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s xiaomi Tecnology - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2024

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :5.10.2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  19^th  day of   September,  2024

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.178/2023

Between

Complainant     :     K.C. Joseph, S/o. Chacko,

Maliyackel House,

Ottalloor P.O.

          (By Advs: Noble P. Chacko & Sebin James)

And

Opposite Parties     :  1. The Managing Director,

Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.,

Orchid (Block E), Ground Floor to 4^th Floor,

Embassy Tech Village, Marathahalli,

Sarjapur Outer Ring Road,

Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560103.

      2.  Vishwanath C.,

Grievance Officer,

Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.,

      3.  Service Manager,

Mi Service Centre (ITTECH),

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Complainant’s case is briefly discussed hereunder :

 

Complainant had purchased a robot vacuum-mop-P marketed under the brand name, Mi, manufactured by 1^st  opposite party, namely, M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. which is represented by its managing director in this case. Complainant had paid Rs.23,556/-  for the product which had one year warranty from the date of purchase

as stipulated in the invoice. In addition to this, complainant had availed a one year extended service warranty after paying Rs.942/-, vide the same invoice. Purchase was on 13.6.2022. Within 5 months of purchase, machine had malfunctioned owing to defect in its laser distance sensor. Complainant had registered a complaint on 11.12.2022 upon the mobile service application of 1^st  opposite party. Receipt of complaint was acknowledged and appointment No.M5386588 was assigned to the complaint.

Product was picked up by 3 rd opposite party who is the service manager of Mi service centre at Thodupuzha.  He had returned it almost after one month after initial pick up. Though the complaint of laser sensor was resolved, issues like erratic battery charging, rapid power discharge and automatic shutdown of the system within minutes after it was turned on had surfaced. 2^nd  repair request was raised through the toll free service number of 1^st  opposite party on 8.2.2023. Receipt of complaint was given as appointment registration No.M5646185.  However,  neither the 1^st  opposite party or any

one  from its service centre within the local limits had contacted the complainant.   As  a

last resort, complainant had again disclosed issues with the representatives of the grievance office 1 st opposite party who is arrayed as 2^nd  opposite party in this case. Unfortunately, nothing was done by opposite parties.  As  a last resort,  complainant had

sought redressal of his grievance through National Consumer Helpline.   He had also filed a complaint on the online portal of NCH, which was registered as grievance No.4227516, on 31.1.2023. Though 1^st opposite party had acknowledged receipt of complaint lodged with National Consumer Helpline on 2.2.2023 and had allotted service

ID: XQ000347168, nothing further was done.  1^st  opposite party had resorted to evasive

tactics. It had informed the NCH that the complainant had not picked up their calls or visited   authorized service centre of 1^st opposite party to get the issue resolved.   Taking

company’s remarks on face value, grievance was disposed of by the NCH agent on 9.6.2023 without providing any efficacious remedy to complainant. On 6.4.2023, complainant had filed a complaint before NCH against 1^st opposite party. This complaint was registered as grievance No.4419385 at NCH. Upon receipt of the same, 1^st  opposite party allotted service request ID: NBIN2302090000149. Thereafter on 20.4.2023, 1^st  opposite party had closed the service request unilaterally declaring that the repair of vacuum cleaner was completed. Complainant submits that no service personnel had visited  his  address  or  picked  up  the  defective item during the  intervening period for

resolving   the  complaint.    Defective  product  was  not  inspected.   Nor was the issue

resolved by 1^st opposite party. When this was communicated to NCH agent, complainant was    advised  to   lodge  a  complaint  with   the   appropriate   Consumer   Forum.

Accordingly  complainant  had filed this  complaint alleging deficiency of service on the

part of opposite parties 1 to 3.   Legal notice w as caused to be issued by complainant on

16.5.2023  to 1^st  and 2^nd  opposite  parties seeking  redressal of  his grievance.   Though

notice was received by opposite parties, nothing was done by them. Complainant purchased the product bonafide believing that it was of good quality on the basis of assurances given in the product description given in official online store namely, Xiaomi

India of 1^st  opposite party. It was also assured so that after sales service would be excellent.   However, the product was of inferior quality and had inherent defects.  There

was failure on the part of opposite parties in not responding to the complainant and repairing or  replacing the defective product. Complainant submits that he has a cause of

action  to  proceed against opposite parties on these premises and seeks his first relief as

replacement  of the  defective  vacuum  mop with a new one  free of cost.   He  seeks  a

 

compensation  of  Rs.20,000/-  from opposite parties with interest at 12% interest per

annum  from  the  date  of  complaint  and also  litigation costs.

 

2.   Complaint was taken on file and notice was issued to opposite parties 1 to 3.

Subsequently,  complainant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC seeking

removal of  opposite  party  No.3  who is  the authorized officer of  Mi  service  centre,

Thodupuzha from party array.  This was allowed.   Notices were sent to opposite parties

in  the  same  address to which lawyer notices  were  sent.   Postal   superintendent  has

reported  that  there was service of notice to the addressees.  Hence we are satisfied that

notices were sent to correct addresses of O.P.1 and 2. No written  version has been filed

by opposite parties 1 and 2.  Hence they were set exparte.  Complainant has filed proof

affidavit in support of complaint averments.  He  has also produced 7 documents which

were admitted in evidence as Exts.P1 to P7. We have heard the complainant. Now the

point which arise for consideration are :

1) Whether robot mop of Mi brand manufactured by 1^st opposite party was defective ?

2) Whether opposite parties had given proper service towards repairing the product ?

3) Whether they had followed the warranty conditions ?

4) Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?

5) Final order and costs ?

 

3. Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together :

 

Complainant  has  given  evidence  in  terms of his complaint,  gist  of  which  has been

narrated earlier. Ext.P1  is  the print out of invoice issued by opposite party for purchase

of the product by complainant for a consideration of Rs.23,556/-.  Ext.P1 also evidences

purchase  of  extended  warranty  for  one year for  a  price of  Rs.942/-.    According to

complainant,  laser censor of product  had  started  malfunctioning within 5 months of its

purchase.    It is  within the warranty  period of one year given along with the product as

per the invoice. Ext.P7 is the printed warranty given to complainant which bears number

of invoice.   Complainant  further  deposed  that initially  the product was  repaired  after

resolving issue.   However, there were subsequent problems like erratic battery charging,

rapid  power  discharge and  automatic  shut down of the system soon after it was turned

on  within  warranty  period.  These  facts have not  been challenged by opposite parties.

Ext.P2 reveals that there were repeated assurances from the side of 1^st  opposite party that the issue will be resolved, dating from 8.2.2023 till 21.4.2023.  There is no report or

information  from  the side  of opposite parties that the issues have been resolved.  Ext.P3 is a print out of grievance detail lodged with NCH by complainant.  Both Exts.P2 and P3 would  go to  show that the product had defects  as deposed by complainant which were not  resolved or repaired.   Ext.P4  is copy of lawyer notice  issued  by complainant  to opposite parties 1 and 2 dated 16.5.2023.  Ext.P5 series are  2  postal receipts with regard to sending of notices to both opposite parties.   Ext.P6 is postal  AD card   received  for service of lawyer notice to 2^nd  opposite party.  Ext.P6(b) is the delivery report given by Postal Superintendent regarding receipt of lawyer notice by opposite parties 1 and 2. There is no response to the lawyer notice. Opposite parties had not appeared before this Commission and given version repudiating the complainant’s case. Complainant has also deposed that there was no effort from the side of 1^st  opposite party to repair the defective product. Unchallenged evidence of complainant would go to show that the robot mob manufactured by 1^st  opposite party was a defective product. It is also proved by the unchallenged evidence of PW1 which is supported by Exts.P2 to P4 that there were latches from the side of 1^st  opposite party in providing prompt and adequate service to the complainant for repairing the product. Defects had surfaced during the warranty period. Such inaction from the side of opposite parties 1 and 2 would also amount to breach of warranty conditions. To sum up, opposite party No.1 had sold a defective product to opposite party contrary to the assurances given vide online store website. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have also failed to provide due service to complainant in repairing defective product. They have also breached the warranty conditions as the defects were not repaired or defective piece replaced during warranty period. There is deficiency in service from their side also. Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

 

4. Point Nos.4 and 5 are considered together :

 

In view of our findings on Point Nos.1 to 3, we further find that the complainant

is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.   Though he had not quantified the litigation costs,

under the circumstances,  we are of the view that a sum of Rs.2000/-  can be awarded on

this account.   In the result,  complaint is allowed with costs upon the following terms :

 

1. Opposite party No.1 is directed to replace the defective robot mop with a new one

which is free of defects without seeking any further payment from the complainant

towards its purchase. If at all opposite parties had stopped manufacture of this model, it

shall return the price of the mop amounting to Rs.23,556/- along with Rs.942/- being the

additional warranty purchased by complainant, all totaling to Rs.24,498/- with 12%

interest from the date of this complaint till date of realisation.

 

2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 shall pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to complainant for

sale of defective product and deficiency in service with 12% interest from the date of

complaint till date of realisation.

 

3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 shall pay a cost of Rs.2000/- in total to complainant towards

litigation costs.

 

Amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, complainant is entitled to

 

proceed against opposite parties for realization of amounts due and for getting reliefs

prayed for by proceeding against them in accordance with the provisions under this Act.

 

Parties are directed to take back extra copies.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 19^th  day of September, 2024

 

 

  Sd/-

    SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 Sd/-

    SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1        - K.C. Joseph.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1    -  print out of invoice issued by opposite party for purchase of the product.

Ext.P2    - repeated assurances from the side of 1^st  opposite party.

Ext.P3   - print out of grievance detail lodged with NCH by complainant.

Ext.P4   - copy of lawyer notice  issued  by complainant  to opposite parties 1 and 2

      dated 16.5.2023.

Ext.P5 series  -  2  postal receipts with regard to sending of notices to both opposite

        parties.

Ext.P6    -  postal  AD card   received  for service of lawyer notice to 2^nd  opposite party.

Ext.P6(b)  -  delivery report given by Postal Superintendent regarding receipt of lawyer

           notice by opposite parties 1 and 2.

Ext.P7    - printed warranty given to complainant which bears number of invoice.  

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR