SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction against OPs to replace device with the same model or refund the price of the device Rs.15,999/- and also pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony to complainant.
Complaint in brief
On 04/02/2021, complainant placed an order of POCO X3 mobile worth Rs. 15,999/- through Flip kart online platform and the said phone was received on 06/02/2022 and the company assured one year warranty for the device and 6 month warranty for accessories. After that the complainant had upgraded the device 3 times which was provided by the company itself as official download packages. At the time of 3rd updation, the phone took longer time to reboot and was stuck on the boot screen for more than one hour. On 12/02/2022 the complainant noticed that the speaker was not working and on 14/02/2022 the issue was raised before OP No.4 Xiaomi Authorised Service Centre at Kannur and they responded that it might be a software issue and to keep the phone with them but complainant want to join back his workplace at Malappuram on 19/02/2022, complainant visited Xiaomi Authorised Service Centre at Manjeri and they also told the same what was said by OP No.4 at Kannur. During the internet search complainant noticed that several people are facing the same issue who upgraded the version MIUI 12.5 in POCO phone. And the technician at Malappuram told that Rs.10,000/- will be the cost to replace the board. The complainant tried to send e-mail which was left unreplied. Thereafter, complainant joined academy for GATE 2023 and was able to GST the said phone via Bluetooth headset for call and classes. But on 20/04/2022 the bluetooth suddenly stopped its function and complainant was unable to call or listen anything from phone. Thereafter on 28/04/2022 complainant posted on twitter explaining the issues with his device and thereby he got a message from @POCO Support and provided a link for submitting his complaint. After 2 days complainant got a call from Xiaomi Authorised Service Centre, Calicut and instructed to submit his phone before OP No.4 and on 30/04/2022 complainant did the same. After inspection they told the board has to be replace and it will cost Rs.8,000/-. On contacting the customer case they replied that the technical from will consider complainant’s phone as out of warranty and it’s the company policy to repair out of warranty and also they will provided 3months on the replaced board. The reason for the issues faced by complainant is described as the phone gets overheated while update and the solder holding CPU IC gets disordered, causing open circuits or short circuits. The complainant suffered hardship and mental agony done to the usage of cheap soldering materials or incorrect quality assurance made by the company due to irresponsible negligence from the part of company to hardship to complainant and hence this complaint.
After filing the complaint, notice was issue to all OPs which was duly served. The OPs have not appeared before the commission and not filed any version. Hence the commission held that OPs have no version and the case proved against the OPs are set ex-parte.
Even though the OPs are remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by his against the OPs. Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 3 documents as marked Ext.A1 to A3 along with alleged mobile phone ad marked as MO1. The complainant was examined as Pw1. So the end the commission heard the case on merit.
Let us have a clear glance to the relevant documents of the complainant. On the perusal of evidence adduced by complainant Ext.A1 is the tax invoice dated 04/02/2021 for an amount of Rs.15,999/- issued by OP No.5 in the name of Suresan T. It is seen that complainant’s address that Suresan T, whose name is mentioned in the tax invoice regarding the purchase of phone, is father of the complainant. Ext.A2 indicates to the averment made by complainant that the phone was submitted before OP No.4 and there is a defect in the phone which was described as fail to detect sim card, front camera not working. As per Ext.A3 it is also stated that the warranty period was expired. Moreover the total amount shown for the after sales service of main board is Rs.9556.82/-. The complainant made an averment that according to OP No.4 the main board has to be replaced and it will cost Rs. 9556.82/- as indicated in Ext.A3. The complainant had produced his phone before the commission and marked as MO1. Moreover as per the Ext.A2 and A3 documents it is seen that the defect arise after the period of warranty. The complainant made an averment with regard to the usage of cheap quality materials but no expert opinion was taken by complainant. The OPs were given a fair chance to defend the case but all OPs remained ex-parte. The defect of the product arise within one year of purchase and the purchaser is confined to use the phone for limited period even after paying a huge amount. So the commission came into an assumption that the materials used to manufacture the phone is of cheap quality as it stated in the complaint. Since the purchaser is not satisfied his need by buying the product even after the payment of huge amount.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties are directed to rectify the defect of MO1 on the payment of cost by complainant or to take back the phone and remit Rs. 15,999/- to complainant as the cost of mobile phone severally and jointly and also pay Rs.2000/-as the compensation cum cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of the order. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1 - Tax invoice
A2 - Service order
A3 - Service order
MO1 - Mobile phone
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
