IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No.125/2022 (Filed on 09/06/2022)
Complainant : Sathikumar P.P,
Peedikaparambil House,
Ambadi Nidhipan,
Kanakkari P.O, Kottayam - 686 632
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1. New Microphone Mobile,
CSI Complex,
Baker Junction,
Kottayam – 686 001.
(By Adv:Nithin M.K)
2. REDMI-9 Mobile Service Centre,
M.S Service, Moosariparambil Building,
Ist Floor, Near Manorama Head Office, Bypass Road, Erayilkadavu Road,
Kottayam – 686 001.
3. The Manager,
Customer Care,
M/s.XIAOMI Technology India (P) Ltd.,
Ground Floor, A.K.R Infinity, Sy.No.113,
Krishna Reddy Ind. Area,
7th Mail, Hosur Road,
Bangalore – 560068, Karnataka.
O R D E R
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant purchased a Redmi-9 mobile Phone from the first opposite party. The screen of the mobile phone became blank while making the calls. The complainant entrusted the phone to the second opposite party to rectify the defects. Technician of the second opposite party inspected the phone and informed that the sensor of the phone is not working properly due to the bent on the sensor. They demanded Rs.3,500/- for the replacement of the defective part. When the complainant requested to replace the defective part under warranty, they informed that the sensor of the phone might be bent by the complainant and refused to rectify the defect of the phone. So this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to replace the defective phone with a new one or to refund the price of the mobile phone and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
After the admission of the complaint notices were duly served to the first and second opposite parties. The third opposite party was impleaded in the party array vide order in IA 334 /2022. Upon Notice from this Commission the first opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed version, though the notice was received by the second opposite party on 24/09/2022 they did not care to appear before the Commission and to file version. Despite the receipt of notice on 27/03/2023 the third opposite party neither cared to appear before the Commission nor to file version. The second and third opposite parties were declared as exparte.
The version of the first opposite party is as follows:
Complainant had purchased a Redmi 9 mobile phone on 8/08/2021 from the first opposite party. The warranty for the said product is provided by the manufacturing company. Second opposite party has no liability towards any manufacturing defects or any complaints that may crop up with the hand set during or after the period of warranty. The manufacturer of the mobile who has issued the warranty card has the sole responsibility for all defects. The first opposite party is only a retailer who sells a product with the warranty of the manufacturer and as such the retailer is not legally bound to pay compensation to the product having manufacture warranty. The complainant has neither approached nor rendered any service of the first opposite party after the purchase of the mobile phone on 8/08/2021. If the damage alleged is due to the physical damage caused by the complainant himself, it is not covered under the warranty. The intention of the complainant is only to make loss to the first opposite party and make undue profits for himself. The first opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits A1 and A2. Refaj, who is the Manager of the first opposite party filed proof affidavit.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following point :
Whether the complainant has succeeded to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and entitled for any reliefs?
POINT :-
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had purchased a Redme-9 mobile phone from the first opposite party on 8/08/2021. Exhibit A1 tax invoice proves that the complainant had paid Rs.10,700/- to the first opposite party as the price of the mobile phone. The specific case of the complainant is that from the initial days of purchase the mobile phone started to show some complaint like while making a call the screen of the phone became blank and nothing was displayed on the screen. According to the complainant he entrusted the phone to the second opposite party for carrying out repair work under warranty. But the second opposite party refused to carry out the repair work under warranty, claiming that the bend on the sensor of the phone was caused by external damage and damage like that would not cover under the warranty.
The complaint was resisted by the first opposite party contending that the hand set which was sold by the first opposite party to the complainant is not having any defect at all. The first opposite party is only a retailer who sells a product with the warranty of the manufacturer. According to the first opposite party, the manufacturer of the mobile phone who has offered the warranty is responsible for all the defects during the period of warranty coverage.
Exhibit A2 is the warranty card issued by the manufacturer of the mobile phone. On going through Exhibit A2 we can see that the manufacturer had offered 1 year warranty to the hardware of the product from the date of purchase. It is further stated in Exhibit A2 that the manufacturer shall provide repair free of charge and or replacement service within the warranty period. On perusal of Exhibit A1 and A2 we can see that Xiaomi Technology(I) Pvt Ltd is the manufacturer of the subject phone. The third opposite party is the Customer Care Manager of the manufacturer of the said phone.
Though the notice from this Commission was received the third opposite party or their representative did not care to appear before the Commission and to contest the case. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the contesting opposite party has no case that the defect of the mobile phone was due to the physical damage caused by the complainant. In the absence of any contradictory evidence, we have no hesitation to arrive conclusion that the mobile phone of the complainant has some defects. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the third opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not rectifying the defect of the mobile phone of the complainant under warranty which is a bounden duty of the third opposite party.
Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we hold that the complaint is to be allowed.
(1)We hereby direct the third opposite party to rectify the defects of the Redmi 9 mobile phone of the complainant at free of cost within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order.
(2)We hereby direct the third opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the compensation amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 16th day of October, 2023
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - Tax Invoice No.1097dated 08/08/2021 for Rs.10,700/-
issued by the 1st opposite party
A2 - Warranty card issued by the 3rd opposite party
Exhibits from the side of Opposite parties :
Nil
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
