DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of July, 2023.
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 26/12/2022
CC/260/2022
Aevin Tom Anish,
S/o Aneesh,
Neelathummuckil House,
Veetampara,
Varode P.O, Ottapalam,
Palakkad. - Complainant
(By Party in person)
V/s
1. Realme Mobile Communication(India)Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by Managing Director,
3rd Floor, Tower B, DLF Building No.8 DLF Cyber City,
Phase 2, Gurgaon - Opposite party
(By ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K., Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
The complainant purchased a Realme Buds Air 3 Neo through the online store of the opposite party on 29.9.2022 for Rs.1599/-. The product is having warranty of 1 year. After a week of purchase, the product was showing connectivity issues. When the product was taken to their Service centre it was informed that the it is having manufacturing defect, hence cannot be used. But they were not ready to give the benefit as per warranty. Aggrieved by this, this complaint is filed seeking refund of the cost of the product along a compensation for deficiency in service.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They did not enter appearance, hence were set ex-parte.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 to A3 as evidence. A1 is the invoice of the product purchased, A2 is the repair orders and A3 is the Warranty Card.
4. As per Ext.A3 marked, the product is having warranty for one year against manufacturing defects. The product purchased on 24.09.2022 (Ext.A1) developed complainant immediately and as per Ext.A2 it was taken for repair on 11/11/2022, with the defect noted as “pairing separately”. As per the proof affidavit filed by the complainant the opposite party has not provided the benefits of warranty ie either rectifying the defect or replacement though the defect has occurred with in the warranty period. As the opposite party failed to enter appearance and defend their case, we have to reach a conclusion that there is failure on the part of the opposite party to provide the services as per the warranty offered by them which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
5. As the complainant proved a prima facie case by way of evidence, the complainant is allowed as follows.
- The opposite party is directed to refund the cost of the product Rs.1599/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from 24.9.2022 till the date of payment.
- The opposite party is also liable to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.
- The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as cost.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.250/- as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of July, 2023.
Sd/- Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
Ext. A1 : Tax Invoice dated 24/09/2022 issued by the opposite party.
Ext. A2 : Repair order dated 11.11.2022.
Ext. A3 : Warranty Card issued by the opposite party.
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Court Witness: Nil
Cost: Rs. 5,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
