D.O.F : 18/08/2021
D.O.O : 30/10/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC138/2021
Dated this, the 30th day of October 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Binoj M, aged 38 years
S/o Bhaskaran Vydhyar(L)
Bino House, Kizhakkekara
Pinachi post
Thekkil, Kasaragod – 671541.
(Adv: T C Narayanan) : Complainant
And
- Rising Stars Mobile India Pvt Ltd
380, Belerica Road, Sri City
Chittor District, Andrapradhesh – 517466.
- Manager, Customer Care,
Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd
Ground Floor, AKR Infinity, Sy No. 113
Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, 7th Mile
Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560068.
- ITTECHIES, Metrotech,
Ground Floor, Golden Arcade,
New Bus stand, Kasaragod – 671121. : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a Redmi Note 9 Pro India Edition Model No. M2003J6A11 from opposite party No.1 for Rs. 13,500/- on 03/03/2021 as per bill No. 125. The said mobile phone was purchased for the purpose of the daily work and use of the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 offered one year warranty to the said mobile phone. The complainant is alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party in connection with misleading the complainant regarding the quality of the product and assuring good history, reliable. After the purchase, the complainant noticed screen failure and abnormal display. There is no display and it shows abnormal display. Further the phone does not start and unable to log, and unable to make calls. The phone does not vibrate or ring. There was abnormal shut down and poor contact with sim cards and button failure also. Therefore, the complainant entrusted the said mobile phone to opposite party No. 3 who is the authorized service provider of opposite party No.1 and 2. On 02/08/2021 itself the opposite party No. 2 informed that the phone is ready for delivery. But when the complainant approached opposite party No.3, he harassed the complainant before other customers and not delivered the mobile phone. After one week the opposite party No. 3 returned the said mobile in a very bad condition. As the shape and condition of the mobile phone was very bad, the complainant had not taken delivery of the mobile, as there was every possibility of complete deterioration of the inner parts of the mobile due to over heat and gum like materials used during negligent repair. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties indulged unfair trade practice, due to which the complainant suffered huge loss and mental agony. Though the complainant made numerous phone calls and whatsapp messages to rectify the defects, the opposite parties declined to rectify the same and delivered the mobile in a very bad condition which amounts to unfair trade practice and cheating. The complainant assesses his damages to Rs. 40,000/- including the price of the mobile phone.
Notice of opposite parties served. But opposite party No.1 and 2 remained absent and were set exparte. The opposite party No.3 filed version stating that he attended the complaint and rectified the mistakes then and there itself. The finishing of the work had informed the complainant but he was not contacted them to collect the mobile back. The opposite party No.3 did not collected any amount from complainant for repair of the mobile phone. The opposite party denied that he returned the said mobile phone in a very bad condition and burnt condition. There is no deficiency in service from the side of opposite party No.3. According to them the complainant approached this forum with evil intention. Filing of this complaint without sending any notice in advance itself shows the falsity of the contention of the complainant. The opposite parties ready to produce the mobile phone repaired by them as and when this Honorable Commission directed to do so. The opposite party No.3 is entitled to get cost as he was dragged to the court in a vexatious litigation of the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer. Therefore the complaint may be dismissed with cost of this opposite party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The documents produced are marked as Ext.A1 to A4. The opposite party represented before the commission that they have no oral evidence. When the case is posted for orders, opposite party No.3 filed a petition to reopen evidence on the ground that he could not appear and give evidence as he was not doing well. Hence as per IA 32/2023 the complainant was again recalled for cross examination, heard both sides.
The issues raised for consideration are;
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there is deficiency in service/ unfair trade parties on the part of opposite parties?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, let us discuss the first question in brief. Here the complainant purchased a mobile phone by giving a consideration of Rs. 13,500/- to opposite party No.1 for his personal use. As per the definition of consumer, a consumer is a person who buys goods or avail services for personal use for a consideration. So definitely the complainant comes under the purview of the definition. After 5 months, the mobile became defective and the complainant sought services of opposite party No.3, who is the authorized service provider of opposite party No.1 and 2. So again the complainant came under the definition of consumer by seeking services from opposite party No.3. But the quality of service availed from opposite party No.3 to the complainant was not of expected quality. The opposite party No.3 failed to cure the defects of the mobile. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone from opposite party No.1 and soon after purchased the complainant noticed screen failure and abnormal sounds from the phone. The phone does not start and unable to make log and unable to make calls. The complainant entrusted the said mobile phone to opposite party No.3 who is the authorized service provider of opposite party No.1 and 2. The opposite party issued receipt dated 02/08/2021 and offered delivery after curing the defects on 04/08/2021 but on 02/08/2021 itself the opposite party No.2 informed through sms to the complainant that the phone is ready for delivery. As per the message the complainant approached the opposite party no.3 but he harassed the complainant in front of other customers. After one week the complainant was called by opposite party No.3 to take delivery of the mobile phone which was in a very bad condition. The complainant was not taken delivery of the mobile and filed this complaint claiming compensation including the price of the mobile phone. Ext.A1 is the bill issued by the dealer to the complainant dated 03/03/2021. Ext.A2 is the service record issued by opposite party No.3 dated 04/08/2022 stated “in warranty” ‘system lag’. Ext A3 is the copy of the sms sent by opposite party 2. Ext.A4 is the photo graphs of the damaged mobile due to repair. By perusing the documents it is clear that after five months of purchase the phone became out of order, unable to use. Ext A3 is the message sent by opposite party No.3 on 02/08/2021 at 6.48 PM to the complainant directing the complainant to collect the device from service center during working hours. As per this direction when the complainant approached opposite party No.3 to collect the mobile, he was insulted by opposite party No.3 in front of other customer. The act of opposite party No.3 caused severe mental agony to the complainant. Thereafter one week, the opposite party No.3 returned the mobile phone but the defects were not cured. Ext. A4 proves the condition of the phone was very bad. So the complainant not accepted the mobile phone. Returning the device without curing the defects in warranty period amounts to gross deficiency in service and the complainant was insulted by the same opposite party before others. This incident increases the gravity of deficiency in service of opposite parties. Due to negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3, the complainant undergone huge loss, monitory loss and severe mental agony.
The opposite party No.3 has not made any attempt to disprove the case of the complainant. In the absence of rebuttal evidence the complainant is entitled to get relief from opposite party No.3. The complainant is seeking damages to a tune of Rs.40,000/- including the price of the mobile phone. But there is no basis for the above claim. The complainant is entitled for the price of the mobile phone with compensation and cost. Considering the facts of this case and the long sufferings of the complainant since last 3 years to cure the defects of the small mobile phone, we are of the view that an amount of Rs.15,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case.
Therefore the complaint is allowed directing all opposite parties jointly and severally to refund the price of the mobile phone along with a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as cost.
In the result, complaint is allowed directing opposite party to refund Rs. 13,500/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand and Five hundred only) along with a compensation of Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which Rs. 13,500/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand Five hundred only) will carry interest at the rate of 9% from 02/08/2021 to till delivery.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Bill
A2 – Service Record
A3 – Copy of the message
A4 – Photographs of the damaged mobile phone
Witness cross-examined
PW1 – Binoj M
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
