IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE  1^st  DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

Present: -        Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

    CC.No.185/2022

Sidharth Kaivalya,

S/o Dileep Kumar, aged 19,

Kaivalya, Chingeli Pulippara P.O.,

Kadakkal, Kollam 691536.                                                        :           Complainant

(By Adv.V.Mohan Kumar)

V/s

1.     Proprietor,

                  Arabian Mobiles Near Gold Palace,

                 Main Road, Kadakkal, Kollam 691536

2.    Manager,

                 POCO Service Center,

                 Vijay Tower, NH Road,

                Above IDBM PNRA 40, Killippalam,

               Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram 695002.

                                                                                                     :        Opposite parties

3. Manager,

               Corporate Office-POCO XIAOMI,

              Embassy Tech Village-1 Block E Orchid,

              Devarabisana Halli, Bellandur, Bengaluru,

               Karnataka 560103.

ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

            This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

            The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

            The complainant is a consumer who purchased a mobile phone under the brand name POCO X3 PRO with No.N/A/866220050788378 from the 1^st opposite party on 26.04.2021 by paying Rs.21,990/- including GST.  At the time of purchase the 1^st opposite party give assurance of one year replacement warranty and free service from the date of sale.  The 2^nd opposite party is the person responsible for overall service of the equipment in South Kerala and 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the phone which has corporate office in Bengaluru.

            A company brochure containing such offers was also issued to the complainant.  From the very beginning of use the mobile phone indicated several complaints and the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party several times to get the defect rectified. But their approach towards the customer was not trustworthy.  In spite of repeated demands and requests the 1^st opposite party was not amenable to rectify the defect and finally the mobile phone become totally dead.  In the circumstances the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on 23.02.2022 asking him to repair the phone properly or replace the phone with a new one.  At that time the 1^st opposite party took back the phone along with the original bill and brochure.  After that 1^st opposite party issued cash bill styled as receipt showing the return of mobile phone to the complainant within the warranty time and the opposite party sought 7 days time for the service of the mobile and though the complainant waited for several weeks the opposite party did not turned up even to give a satisfactory reply.  After two months of entrusting the mobile to the 1^st opposite party the complainant finally approached the opposite party with the expectation of getting back his mobile phone after repair.  But still the product is not returned.  The complainant was sent back without any assurance for his enquiries.  In the circumstances the disappointed customer issued a legal notice to the 1^st opposite party on 09.05.2022 which was received by the 1^st opposite party on 17.05.2022.  Even then there was no response from the opposite party till the date of filing this complaint.  The 1^st opposite party is the seller who sold the item to the complainant so also received the consideration amount and assured one year warranty and free service to the instrument and that is why the complainant purchased the item from the 1^st opposite party.  There is absolute deficiency in service from the part of the seller and the complainant also suspects manufacturing defect with the phone which is now in the custody of the 1^st opposite party.  Hence all opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the huge loss suffered by the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

            Though notice was issued to the opposite parties were served they failed to appear before the commission nor made any representation hence they were set exparte.  The complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Exts.P1 to P5 documents.  Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the records.  Ext.P1 is the cash bill dated 26.04.2021.  Ext.P2 is the original receipt dated 23.02.2021.  Ext.P3 is the legal notice dated 09.05.2022.  Ext.P4 is the acknowledgment card.  Ext.P5 is the warranty user guide.

            The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.P1 to P5 documents would establish prima facie that the complainant had purchased a POCO X3 PRO mobile phone on 26.04.2021.  It is clear from Ext.P5 warranty user guide which is explanatory  about the warranty conditions.  It is specifically mentioned in Ext.P5 that the defect will be cured by the opposite party at any time.  According to Ext.P5 almost all defects can be cured within the warranty  and warranty period free of cost.  The opposite party had assured the  complainant one year replace warranty and free service from the date of sale they have not complied with the terms of warranty, though the complainant approached the opposite party to get the mobile phone defect free.  However the approach of opposite parties towards the customer was not cordial and trustworthy and the mobile phone become totally dead.   It is pertinent to note that the said defects have been sustained within the period of warranty.  In spite of repeated requests and demand and the complainant had hand over his mobile phone to the 1^st opposite party on 23.02.2022 demanding to repair the phone properly or replace the same with a brand new one and the opposite party assured and seeked 7 days time for the service of the mobile phone the 1^st opposite party did not rectify the defects of mobile phone nor given a satisfactory reply.  The 1^st opposite party is under obligation to keep the mobile phone perfect working condition at least for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase but they failed to do so.  The 1^st opposite party has acted in most negligent manner while dealing with the grievance of the complainant and thereby the complainant has suffered loss and injury and entitled to compensation.  The opposite parties have not complied with terms of warranty and have acted extremely negligent in satisfying  the grievance of the complainant and hence he could not be able to use the mobile phone comfortably at least within the warranty period which caused much mental agony apart from financial loss.

Further the defective phone is with the custody of 1^st opposite party and an obligation is on their part to prove that there is no manufacturing defect for the product and in its absence we hold the phone had manufacturing defect.  But the 1^st opposite party has not turned up and discharged its burden. The 1^st opposite party had failed to repair or replace the defective mobile phone within the warranty period.    The complainant had knocked the doors of opposite parties with defective mobile phone but his grievance are not solved.   The 2^nd opposite party is the person responsible for overall service of equipments in South Kerala and 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer who is having corporate office in Bengaluru.  Hence it is clear that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3. In the circumstances we find merit in the complaint and the same  is only to be allowed. 

            In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

1. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed to substitute a brand new mobile phone of the same value and specifications to the complainant or to repay its price of Rs.21,990/- with interest @ 9% per annum and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss  caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as the costs of the proceedings.
3. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from today failing which the complainant is entitled to realize the amount for Rs.21,990/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the complaint till the realization along with the costs from the opposite parties No.1 to 3 jointly and severally and from their assets.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 1^st day of  October  2022.  

                                                                                     STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

                                                                                 S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

      Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                                                    Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1             : The cash bill dated 26.04.2021

Ext.P2             : The original receipt dated 23.02.2021. 

Ext.P3              : The legal notice dated 09.05.2022

Ext.P4             : Acknowledgment card

Ext.P5             : The warranty user guide

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil