By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
Case of the complainant:-
1. On 25/07/2021, complainant’s wife had ordered a smart phone POCO X3 Pro (Steel blue, 8GB 128 GB) with IMEI 866220053788136 through Flipkart online shopping site. Opposite party No.3 sold the above phone through opposite party No.2 Flipkart. Complainant’s wife purchased the above phone to complainant as a birthday gift and it was delivered on 29/07/2021 and it was received by complainant’s brother Mr. Arshad V.M.
2. But the phone had multiple issues like “touch issue and” “proximity sensor issue” and complainant noticed the issues after 10 days of its purchase. Complainant was unable to return the product within 10 days of its purchase, as per flipkart’s return policy. Then as per the advice of customer-care executive, he had entrusted the phone to the nearest service centre of opposite party No.4 on 09/09/2021 and they returned the phone back to complainant on 10/09/2021
3. After receiving the phone complainant noticed another set of issues like “buzzing sound from phone speaker” and “defect with back cover” and complainant had again given the phone to the service centre on 18/09/2021. Thereafter on 04/10/2021 complainant registered a complaint before the Consumer help line portal with grievance No.3001762. Then on 16/11/2021, they replaced the phone with a new one with IMEI 866220050350054 and the grievance status shows “we have investigated from the concerned team and as per the update from the concerned team, replacement has been completed on 06/12/2021. But the replaced mobile has also many problems regarding board and network and it does not boot. Hence complainant had given the mobile in the nearest service centre on 22/6/2022 and on 29/06/2022 they gave another mobile phone Redmi note 10 Pro (6GB,128GB) with IMEI 862407053837542 to complainant. The price and specification of the mobile was very low as compared to that of his old one.
4. Complainant again stated that this mobile series is a defective piece and the company now extended the POCO X3 Pro mobile warranty due to so many complaints regarding the board. Then complainant contacted the POCO support service centre many time for the contact address of POCO, but they did not give it. Due to the above issues complainant cannot use the above said mobile which has a lot of defects. Now complainant is using the replaced mobile phone which has less of
cost and configuration. Hence opposite parties are deficient in their service and act
opposite parties amount to an unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
5. Prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get Rs.20,999/- the cost of the mobile phone, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by him by the act of opposite parties and he is entitled to get the cost of the proceedings.
6. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and notice served on them and but they did not turn up. Hence opposite parties set exparte.
7. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A7. Ext.A1 is the copy of tax invoice given to complainant by opposite parties, Ext.A2 is the copy of the service record dated 10/09/2021, Ext.A3 is the computer printout of reply sent by opposite parties to complainant regarding the service request registered dated 18/09/2021, Ext.A4 is the copy of grievance details, Ext. A5 copy of service record given by opposite party No.4 to complainant dated 16/11/2021, Ext. A6 is the copy of service order given by opposite party No.4 to complainant dated 22/06/2022, Ext.A7 is the service record given by opposite party No.4 to complainant dated 29/06/2022.
8. The allegations against opposite parties are proved by the unchallenged evidence of complainant. There is no contra evidence in this matter. Moreover complainant produced seven documents which are very supportive to prove his case. Moreover from the documents it is understood that the phone had manufacturing defects. Complainant had got a mobile which is a defective one. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite parties are deficient in service.
8. We allow this complaint as follows:-
- The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.20,999/-(Rupees Twenty thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) the cost of the mobile phone to the complainant and complainant is directed to returned back the mobile phone to opposite parties after payment by opposite parties .
- The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite parties are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 23rd day of November, 2022.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A7
Ext.A1 : Copy of tax invoice given to complainant by opposite parties.
Ext.A2 : Copy of the service record dated 10/09/2021.
Ext.A3 : Computer printout of reply sent by opposite parties to complainant
regarding the service request registered dated 18/09/2021.
Ext.A4: Copy of grievance details.
Ext.A5: Copy of service record given by opposite party No.4 to complainant dated
16/11/2021.
Ext.A6: Copy of service order given by opposite party No.4 to complainant dated
22/06/2022.
Ext.A7: Service record given by opposite party No.4 to complainant dated 29/6/2022.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
