Dtd. 25.07.2023

                                               Final Order/Judgment

DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA:- Presiding Member

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the treatment meted out by the opposite parties as mentioned above (OP 1,2 and 3 in particular) in the matter of purchase of a cell phone and the post sales services thereof, the instant case has been filed by the complainant on 24.11.2022, u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 involving four opposite parties as mentioned prepage.

After trimming the unnecessary details, the series of events as depicted chronologically by the Complainant in her petition is as under.

1. The complainant on 22.09.21 placed an order online with OP 4 i.e. the e-commerce organization Amazon.in for a smartphone device under the name Redmi Note-10 Pro (Nebula 6GB+128GB) worth Rs.17,999/- and the corresponding payment was to be made in six monthly EMI through HDFC Credit card. (Copies of tax invoice and loan EMI table annexed) 
2. On 23.09.21 the item was delivered by OP-4 to the complainant’s address as declared in the complaint petition.
3. On 22.03.22 the Complainant detected that the back camera of the device got a ‘focusing problem’ and the same was not working.
4. On detection of the snag, the Complainant approached to the respective Authorised Service Centre namely Sagun Infotech, Mukta Abasan, Farme side Road Chuchura, Hooghly 712102 on 23.03.2022. The said service centre, on admission of the snag, extended the required service by replacing the defective camera.(Copy of service order annexed)
5. However the same technical problem with the camera arose again on 02.06.22 and the Complainant naturally referred the problem to the same service centre by being present personally. At this, the concerned person of the Authorised Service Centre opined that the problem cropped up because of some manufacturing defect and they could only change the camera within warranty period only. Allegedly, when they were requested to put the same on record, they were reluctant to do the same and warned of refusal of any further service from their end in this regard if they were persuaded to put their opinion on record.  Under compelling circumstances the Complainant had no other option than to get her phone repaired by replacement of the camera and thus there was the recurrence of the earlier occasion. (Copy of service order is annexed)
6. But within one month of the said replacement, the Complainant to her utter frustration noticed that the same problem came back for the third time.

This time the Complainant sent a legal notice to the OP 1 i.e. the concerned authority of the Kolkata office of Xiaomi Technology Pvt. Ltd. on 12.08.2022 with copies to all the OPs, with a request to replace the defective handset which was within the warranty period as on date of dispatch of the legal notice. However, all these attempts for getting a proper remedy ultimately were proved to be futile exercises. (Copy of legal notice and postal receipts annexed)

7. In this mean time the development which came to the knowledge of the Complainant that OP 1 having been aware of the complaints with the particular handset in general requested the users to visit any authorized service centre and declared also that their service teams would provide comprehensive technical support and repairs at no additional cost. (Copy of relevant circulation by the manufacturing company annexed)
8. Having been inspired at this, the Complainant again visited the store on 19.09.22 and found the store she visited previously was closed and was shifted to the address as mentioned in the Complaint petition. However when she made her visit to the shifted address and referred to the problem as well as the manufacturing company’s declaration, there was denial on the OP 3’s part in the matter of extending any further service.
9. Subsequently the Complainant made several visits at the service centre desperately with a purpose to get her phone repaired as the warranty period was on the verge of its expiry. But she claims to have been refused by OP 3 on one plea or the other.
10. On 20.10.22 the second legal notice was sent to the OP 3 which was refused. Eventually, the problem was left unresolved. In view of the series of events mentioned earlier, the complainant in the petition brings to focus her worries, anxieties, sufferings and harassment. (Copy of the second legal notice annexed)

Finally, utter humiliation, physical and mental harassment compelled the Complainant to file the instant complaint petition.

Resultantly, in the complainant petition, the complainants prays for an order directing the opposite parties either to refund the purchase price of the defective handset of Rs.17,999/- with 12% interest or to replace the defective handset by a new one.

 Simultaneously, the complainant claims Rs.1,00,000/- from OP 1 and 2 as compensation for mental agony, and harassment and further Rs.50,000/- from OP 3 as compensation for ‘misrepresentation’ ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’.

Now, so far as the history of the case is concerned, the complainant has submitted evidence on affidavit, brief notes on argument and other corroborating documents whereas all the opposite parties in spite of proper service of notice failed to file written version within the stipulated time. Thus the case ran ex parte against all the Opposite parties.

                                                       Issues for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.                                                                                  
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.

                                          Decision with reason

Issue No. 1

In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2 (7) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.

Issue No. 2

Both the complainant and the opposite party no.1 & 3 are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly.

The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/-

Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

Issue No. 3 and 4

For the sake of convenience, these mutually inter-related issues are taken together.

 Materials on records viz. the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit and brief notes on argument filed by the complainant and other connected records are perused.

It is apparent from the records, the submissions of the complainant and the circumstantial evidences that the cell phone purchased by the complainant suffered from technical defect and in spite of several complaints, several visits and continuous persuasion the problem remained unresolved. That the cell phone was defective in the matter of backside camera is beyond doubt and the same was initially admitted by the service centre also. 

 In view of the above and on perusal of the case record and documents, this Commission is of the opinion that the cell phone purchased by the complainant was defective and neither it was repaired nor replaced. Resultantly the complainant suffered a lot and unfortunately the opposite parties showed utter indifference towards the sufferings of the complainant. Deficiency of service on the opposite parties’ part was conspicuous.  

Hence, it is     

ORDERED

 that the complaint case bearing no.230/2022 be and the same is partly allowed on contest.

It is held that the opposite parties 1 and 2 will be jointly liable to either replace the defective cell phone by a new one with the same features or refund back Rs.17,999/-(cost of the device) along with interest @ 9% for the period from 01.09.2022 to the actual date of  refund as mentioned before.

This Commission further directs the OP 1,2 and 3 to pay the Complainant Rs.30,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.

Out of this amount of Rs.30,000/-, OP 1 and 2 will be jointly liable to pay Rs.20,000/- and OP 3 will be liable to pay the rest amount.

All the opposite parties will have to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of this order. In the event of failure to comply with this order, the opposite parties 1 and 2 will pay a cost of Rs.15,000/-  and OP3 will pay a cost of Rs.5000/-by depositing the same in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

           Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The final order will be available in the respective website i.e. www.confonet.nic.in.

Drafted and word file created by me