IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

                                                  C.C.No. 233/2022

PRESENT

SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT

      SMT. S.SANDHYA   RANI. BSC, LL.B, MEMBER

  SRI.  STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER

                                                         ORDER DATED:  29-04-2023.

BETWEEN

            Varunkumar P.,

            S/o Pushpangadhan,

            Charippurathu Veedu,

            Anakottoor P.O., Kottarakkara,

            Kollam 691 506.                                                                   : Complainant

AND

1. Proprietor,

Xperia Mobiles, Near Geetha Auditorium,

Aisha Complex, Adoor 691523.

Xiomi Technology India Pvt.Ltd.,

Ground Floor, AKR Infinity Sy.No.113,

Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, 7^th Mile, Hosur Road,

Bangalore 560068, Karnataka.:      Opposite Parties

ORDER

Stanly Harold, B.A.LL.B, Member

          This complaint is filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

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

The complainant purchased a Poco X3 Pro mobile phone from 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs.18,999/- on 20.08.2021.   At the time of purchase, opposite party assured the complainant that the handset has full warranty for a period of one year.  In the tax invoice  it has been specifically stated about the warranty period the manufacturer will rectify the defect, free of charge, by either repairing or replacing the defective mobile.  Thereafter the touch pad and the sensor of the mobile phone were not in a working condition.  Due to this complainant had entrusted this mobile to the service centre at Kottarakkara and they have replaced the defective phone.  But on 19.01.2022 the replaced phone has become defective.  Thereafter the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party.  At the time they had demanded the complainant that the replaced phone or the amount given for the phone will not be refunded and the opposite party told the complainant can opt Poco X4 Pro  5G mobile .  But the complainant was not satisfactory to the same though the said mobile was not suitable for the profession of the complainant.  The offered phone by the opposite party is not satisfactory to the complainant.  The authorized service centre of the Poco mobile centre had an obligation to their customers by rectifying the defects of the products sold by them.  Hence there is deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party.  Due to the above mentioned acts of the opposite parties the complainant had suffered loss and damage and mental agony.  The opposite party had acted in most negligent manner while dealing with the complaint of the complainant and he suffered loss and injury and hence entitled for compensation. The opposite party has failed to comply with the terms of the warranty and has acted in an extremely negligent manner in redressing the grievance of the complainant by which the complainant was not able to use the mobile phone comfortably till date and had been under great mental pressure.    The defect of the mobile phone has seriously affected the profession of the complainant in every sense.  This is a clear case of  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint.   

          Though notice was served to the opposite parties they failed to appear before the Commission nor made any representation.  Hence they were set exparte.  Complainant appeared before the Commission and filed chief affidavit and marked Ext.P1 to P6 documents.  Ext.P1 is the tax invoice dated 20.08.2021.  Ext.P2 is the

service record dated 03.09.2021.  Ext.P3 is the service order dated 29.11.2021.  Ext.P4 is the service record dated 19.01.2022.  Ext.P5 is the service record dated 08.07.2022.  Ext.P6 is service record dated 15.10.2022.

The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.P1 to P6 documents would establish that the complainant had purchased a Poco X3- Pro mobile phone.  It is clear from the Ext.P1 invoice itself about the warranty specified as one year and defects will be cured by the opposite parties any time and the defects can be cured within the warranty period free of cost.  Thereafter the touch pad and sensor of the mobile phone was not in a working condition.  Subsequent to this the complainant had produced the phone before the service centre at Kottarakkara and the phone was replaced by the opposite party.  However the opposite party replaced the mobile phone with another phone the mother board of replaced phone became defective on 08.07.2022.  Thereafter the complainant has contacted the 2^nd opposite party, they told the complainant that the defective phone has already been replaced by them.  So they cannot supply a new mobile phone of same model and specification.  If the complainant needs a mobile phone, they will supply a Poco X4 Pro 5 G.  But complainant was not satisfied with the phone offered by the 2^nd opposite party as the said phone is not suitable for his profession and studies. The complainant was personally present before the commission and argued that he is engaged in the profession of editing as well as studying the bachelor course through online. Due to the defect of the mobile the complainant had to face consequences like breakage in studies and profession of editing.  The denial of opposite parties caused much financial loss and mental agony.   It is pertinent to note that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant became defective within the warranty period that was handed over to the 2^nd opposite party and they had replaced the said phone.  But within a short period the mother board of the said mobile phone became defective and complainant handed over it to the 2^nd opposite party.  But 2^nd opposite party was not willing to supply mobile phone having same specifications and model.  The opposite party has an obligation to provide a defect free mobile phone to the complainant.  The opposite parties had an obligation to supply a defect free mobile to complainant as such he had paid an amount of 18,999/- to opposite parties for the said mobile.

On the basis of uncontroverted testimony of the complainant coupled with Ext.P1 to P6 documents, it can be safely concluded that the complainant has established his case warranting the grant of relief sought for.  Hence we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties had an obligation on their part to prove that there is no manufacturing defect for the product and in its absence we hold that the mobile phone had manufacturing defect.  It is pertinent to note that the admitted defect happened during warranty period.  Complainant has sustained mental agony apart from financial loss.  In the circumstances we are of the view that the complaint is only to be allowed.

In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms:-

1. The opposite parties are directed to refund the price of Rs.18,999/- and on receipt of the amount, the complainant shall return the phone in dispute to the opposite party and that the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and the 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.2,000/-as  costs of the proceedings.
3. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to realize the amount of Rs.18999+5000+2000  along with the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization along with the costs from the opposite parties and by charging on their assets movable and immovable.

Dictated to the Confidential AssistantSmt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in theOpen Commission on this the29^thday ofApril 2023.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD

MEMBER

Sd/-

S.K.SREELA

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.SANDHYA RANI

MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                      Forwarded/by Order               

Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1             : The tax invoice dated 20.08.2021

Ext.P2                         : Service record dated 03.09.2021

Ext.P3             : Service order dated 29.11.2021

Ext.P4             : Service record dated 19.01.2022. 

Ext.P5             : Service record dated 08.07.2022

Ext.P6             : Service record dated 15.10.2022.

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil