IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2020
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 113/2018 (filed on 11/06/2018)
Petitioner : K.M. Shaji,
Kakkolil House,
Manarcad,
Kottayam – 686019.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Proprietor,
Oxygen the Digital Shop,
Oxygen Cyber Tower,
11/115 B. Opp. Sugar ‘N’ Spice,
K.K. Road, Kanjikuzhi – 4.
(Adv. Karjet Koduvath, Adv. Arathi Karjet,
Adv. Saji Mathew, Adv. Denu Joseph and
Adv. Neethu Reghukumar)
2) The Manager,
Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
5th Floor, Delta Block, Embassy,
Tech Square, Kadubeesanahalli,
Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road,
Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560103.
(Adv. Vipin P. Varghese and Adv. Jithin Paul)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The case of the complainant is as follows.
The complainant has purchased Redmi M1 A1 4/64GB Mobile Rose Gold mobile phone by virtue of invoice No.KJY1718RS-7765 from the 1st opposite party for his son Mithun Shaji on 29/01/18. Within a week, the said phone became defective. The said Mithun Shaji carried this phone to abroad. The said mobile phone showed the complaints of repeated restart and holding a home screen. After 3 months, the said Mithun sent the said phone through one of his friend to the complainant and the complainant contacted the opposite party for repair. The 1st opposite party retain the phone and told that they would rectify the defect of the phone by entrusting with the authorized service centre. On the next day, the 1st opposite party handed over the phone to the complainant with an assurance that the defect had been cured. But quite dimay to the complainant the phone showed same defect and became useless. Then, as per the direction of the 1st opposite party, the complainant entrusted the said phone to the authorized service centre, near K.S.R.T.C. Kottayam several times within a month. When it was understood by the complainant that the phone became useless due to the irreparable defect, he demanded the replacement of the phone. But the opposite parties refused to replace the same. The phone had a warranty for 1 year and the accessories had warranty for 6 months. The non repairment of the phone within the warranty period and the non replacement of the defective phone within warranty period by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant seeking an Order directing the opposite party to replace the phone and compensation for the tune of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and cost of this litigation.
Upon notice opposite party 1 and 2 entered before the Forum and filed separate version.
The version of the 1st opposite party is as follows.
The complainant had purchased Redmi M1 A1 4/64GB Mobile Rose Gold mobile phone on 29/01/2018 for Rs.14,500/- manufactured by the 2nd opposite party from the 1st opposite party. The said mobile phone has never been handed over to the 1st opposite party after sale. The 1st opposite party is no where connected with the 2nd opposite party or its authorized service centers. The said mobile phone was handed over to the authorized service centre of the 2nd opposite party for the alleged services. The deficiency in service if any committed by the 2nd opposite party or its authorized service centre is not within the direct knowledge of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party is only a dealer of the manufacturing company. Warranty coverage and other service of the products are not covered within the purview of the 1st opposite party. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the 1st opposite party.
Brief of the version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows.
2nd opposite party has no information as to whether the complainant has purchased the mobile phone. The complainant had never approached the 2nd opposite party with the complaint or a request for another phone. The phone has not been repaired for the same complaint at various times. The defects must have happened due to the negligence of the complainant in using the phone. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the 2nd opposite party.
The evidence of this case consist of deposition of pw1 and Ext.A1 from the side of the complainant and proof affidavit by the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party has not adduced any documentary or oral evidence.
On the evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record, we would like to consider following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?
- Relief and costs?
Point No.1 and 2
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point no. 1 and 2 together.
The specific case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased Redmi M1 A1 4/64GB Mobile Rose Gold mobile phone from the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs.14,500/- for his son Mithun Shaji on 29/01/2018. The tax invoice dtd.29/01/18 issued by the 1st opposite party is marked as Ext.A1. On perusal of the Ext.A1, it can be seen that Ext.A1 is issued in the name of one Mr. Mithun. The complaint is filed by the complainant K.M. Shaji, he is the father of the said Mithun along with an authorization letter dtd.06/06/2018 by the said Mithun in favour of the said K.M. Shaji. Admittedly, the said phone was carried by said Mithun to U.K. Pw1 deposed before the Forum that when the phone became defective, said Mithun sent the said phone through one of the friends of the complainant. He further deposed that he had the direct knowledge that the phone was not properly functioning. Though the 2nd opposite party denied the purchase of the phone by the complainant, the 1st opposite party admits the sale of the phone to the above said Mithun on 29/01/2018. The 1st opposite party stated in the proof affidavit that the said phone was entrusted with the authorized service centre of the 2nd opposite party for the services of the phone. The 1st opposite party also admits that the 2nd opposite party is the manufacture of the said phone. On perusal of Ext.A1, we can see that there is an express terms and conditions with effect that the accessories of the mobile had a warranty of 6 months from the date of purchase. Though pw1 alleges that the mobile phone has manufacturing defect, he did not adduce any expert evidence to substantiate his contention. The complainant did not adduce any evidence regarding on which day he had entrusted the phone to the authorized service centre of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant did not produce any warranty card and user manual of the phone to prove the period of warranty and the conditions of the warranty of the phone it is assured by the manufacture of the said phone. He further deposed before the Forum that he did not doubt what has been happened to the phone while the said phone was abroad in the hand of his son. On a thoughtful evaluation of the available evidence we are of the opinion that the complainant has not succeeded to prove that he had entrusted the phone with the opposite party cure the defect of the phone within the warranty period. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,
corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2020
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 : Shaji K.M.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 : Tax invoice dtd.29/01/18 issued by 1st opposite party
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
