IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

                         Wednesday the 16^th day of September, 2020.

                                      Filed on 05-03-2020

  Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.65/2020

   Between

Complainant:-                                                 Opposite parties:-

Sri.Abin Vincent George                           1.   The Authorized Signatory

Illickal Purayidom                                            Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.Ltd.

Vattayal Ward                                                  Ground Floor, AKR Infinity

Thiruvampady P.O.                                          Sy.No.113, Krishna Reddy Industrial

Alappuzha- 688 002                                         Area, 7^th Mile, Hosur Road,

(Party in person)                                              Bangalore- 560068, Karnataka.

                                                                    2.   The Authorised Signatory

                                                                          myG Alappuzha, Room No.26/1310-B

                                                                          SD Pharmacy Building

                                                                          Near Iron Bridge, Alappuzha-688011

                                                                    3.   Sri.Sijo Thomas

                                                                          Sonic Systems, Pulimoottil Trade –

                                                                          Centre, Mullackal, Alappuzha-688011

                                                            ORDER

                                      C.K. LEKHAMMA (MEMBER)

The facts of the complainant’s case are follows:-

        The complainant purchased a M1A3 handset from the 2^nd opposite party, the authorized dealer of 1^st opposite party on 04.01.2020.  After a short period of purchase, ie on 29.02.2020 the display unit of the device shown complaints.  It was taken up for repair by 3^rd opposite party, the service centre.  Their technician was examined the handset and confirmed that the same is not suffering any physical and water damages and give assurance to the complainant that they will rectify the complaint within 4 days.  But the same day itself they demanded Rs.5200/- for its repairing charges through phone.  The complainant take back the gadget from the service centre and approached the 2^nd opposite party.  They informed that they would repair the same but they did not take any positive steps to do so.  Thereafter, the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party on several occasions but it was in vain. Hence this complaint. 

2.  The complainant appeared in person.  The opposite parties did not care to appear before the commission despite the receipt of notice.  Complainant filed proof affidavit Exts.A1 to A3 were marked.   Heard the complainant.

3.     The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of mobile phone in question or in the alternative its repair?
2. Compensation and costs if any?

4.     Points No.1 and 2

        As per Ext.A1 receipt, complainant purchased the disputed gadget on 04.01.2020 from the 2^nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.9,500/-.  Ext.A2 is the terms and conditions and warranty card which shows that device covered within the warranty.  Ext.A3 is the bill issued by 3^rd opposite party on 29.02.2020 in which it is mentioned the repairing charges as Rs.5,175.31/-.

According to the complainant the mobile phone in question has gone out of order within a short period of purchase.  But the opposite parties are not ready to repair the same as requested by the complainant.  On a perusal of the Exibits A1 to A3 the alleged defect is found within the warranty period. As per Ext.A3 service record 3^rd opposite party claimed service charges.  It is clear that one of the duties of the authorised dealer to ensure the efficient working of the goods sold by them.  Hence the 2^nd opposite party is bound to rectify the defect noted.  That is the opposite parties 1 and 2, manufacturer and dealer are liable to rectify the defects since the product has went out of order within a short span of time.  Moreover the opposite parties have been given ample opportunity to substantiate their version but the evidence of the complainant is not rebutted.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the opposite parties are committed deficiency in service therefore 2^nd opposite party, the authorised dealer of 1^st opposite party who is liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, we refrain from ordering any cost.

5.     On foregoing reasons, we allow the complaint in part and direct that:-

1. Opposite parties 1 and 2 shall rectify the defect of the mobile phone under dispute within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Failing which opposite parties shall refund Rs.9,500/- (Rupees nine thousand five hundred only) which is the price of the mobile phone.
2. The 2^nd opposite party shall pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) by way of compensation to the complainant, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 16^th day of September,2020.

                                            Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)

        Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

Ext.A1            -       Bill issued from the myG shop, Alappuzha

Ext.A2            -       Terms and conditions and warranty card

Ext.A3            -       Service record received from the service centre

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil

// True Copy //

To

        Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                           By Order

                                                                       Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Sa/-

Compared by:-