Orissa

Rayagada

CC/198/2021

Smt R. Padmavati - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Xiaomi technolgy India pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION RAYAGADA, ODISHA.

Date of Institution: 25.11.2021

     Date of Final Hearing: 29.03.2023

         Date of  Pronouncement: 10.05.2023

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.198 / 2021

Smt. R.Padmavati,  Goutam Nagar,

Post/Dist: Rayagada, 765 001.

(Represented  in  person)                                                                                       …Complainant

 

Versus

The Manager, Xiaomi  Technology India Pvt. Ltd.,

Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560 103..

(Sri  Santosh  Kumar  Mishra,Advocate, Navarangapur for the O.P. ).                … Opposite Parties

 

Present:          1. Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President.

ORDER         U/S- 39  R/W  SECTION- 64 OF THE C.P.ACT,2019

Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President

Brief facts of the case:-

Case in hand is the allegation of  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps  for  non refund   of   Rs. 11,000/- towards  mobile  price  which was  found defective  within warranty period due to defective  within warranty period and  the   service centre of the O.P  had not given proper service   which  the complainant sought  redressal.

The Back ground  facts in a nutshell  are that  the complainant   had purchased a mobile  set i.e.  Redmi Note 9 Shadow black 4 GB IMEI Sl. No.860846058299053 in shape of  on line vide  Tax invoice No.5216579042100080  Dtd.15.04.2021  on payment of consideration amount a sum of Rs.11,000/-.  During the warranty period the  above set was  found defective. Further  service centre of the O.P which is situated at Rayagada town   was  not  given proper service for functioning of the above mobile set.  Due to lack of service  of the service centre the  complainant  moved the matter  to the  O.Ps for  replacement or refund  of the price  of the above product.   But the O.Ps had  paid  deaf ear  to the genuine  complaint.  Hence, the complainant  finding no option  approached this Commission  to get relief and prayed  direct the O.Ps  to refund the  price of the  mobile set  a sum of Rs. 11,000/- with interest  and  compensation. Hence this complaint.

On being noticed,  the O.P  appeared  through their learned  counsel Sri  Santosh  Kumar Mishra   and filed  Written version.

Heard from the complainant and from the learned counsel for the O.P.   Perused the record, affidavit  and other documents  filed by  both the parties.

Basing on the pleadings of the complainant, this commission framed the following issues for determination.

ISSUES:-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps.?
2. Whether the  services of the O.Ps are  deficient towards the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled  to any reliefs from the O.Ps?

Perused the complaint petition as well as the documents filed by the complainant  including  self attested Xerox copies  Tax Invoice  which was issued by the O.Ps in  favour of the complainant  Marked as Annexure-I .Issue  No.1.

As  per  Section 2(7)(i) & (ii) of C.P. Act, 2019 a person can be deemed to be a consumer  when he hires or avails   of any  services for consideration which has been  paid or  promised  to be  paid. In the instant case the  complainant  had purchased the  mobile  set from the O.P.  through on line  on  payment  of consideration  of   Rs.11,000/- bearing Invoice No. 5216579042100080  Date.  15.04.2021  which  was issued by the O.Ps  in favour of the  complainant. Therefore the complainant falls within the  definition of consumer.

In view  of the discussion above,  the  complainant  is a Consumer under the  O.Ps as envisaged  U/S-2(7)(1)  &  (ii) of C.P. Act, 2019.

            Accordingly   issue No. 1  is answered.

Issue    No.2&  3 .

These  two issues invite common discussion and hence  they are being taken up together.

            This Commission  perused the documents filed by the  complainant and it proves that the complainant has purchased  a  mobile set   from the O.P.)  and after its purchase when the  above set  was found  defective  and the  O.Ps service  centre  failed  to remove the defects of the  mobile set. At the time of selling their products the O.Ps  ensure that  they would provide  after sale service to the  consumer  but in this case the O.Ps sold  their product and failed to  give after sale service  which is clear deficiency  in service on the part of the O.Ps. 

            At this stage we  hold that if the  above product  require service  immediately after  its purchase then it can be presumed  that it  is  manufacturing defect and if a defective  product is supplied , the consumer is entitled to  get refund of the price of the product/article or to replace a new one  and also the consumer  is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost  to meet his mental  agony, financial  loss.

            In the instant case as it appears that the above product which was  purchased by the complainant had developed  defects immediately after its purchase and the  O.Ps were unable to restore  its normal  functioning during the warranty period.

            It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and had purchased above product  with an expectation to have the  effective  benefit  of use of the product, but in this case   the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the   article and  deprived of in using  the  above set. The defects were not removed  by the O.Ps.

The O.Ps in their written version  contended that the Hang is neither a technical defect nor a manufacturing defect of the above set.   Here the complainant has approached  to  the  service centre  on different dates  for the problem of  his set and after upgraded the software, he never approached further before any body for non  rectification of the above set. Hence the  complainant  be put to put to strict  proof   of the same. How the complainant has claimed that, the mobile set  is a defective set on absent of any expert opinion report.  Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief prayed in the complaint petition and thus the complaint may dismissed.

The O.P.  taking one and other pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 2019. . .    The O.P.    in their written version relied  citations of the apex court`  &  prays to dismiss the complaint petition against   O.P. 

Hence it is ordered.

                                    ORDER.

The O.P.  is directed to return back the defective product from the complainant  inter alia  to refund  price  of  mobile  set  a sum of Rs.11,000/-  to the complainant.       Parties are left to bear their own cost.

The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.

 

Miscellaneous  order if any  delivered by this  commission  relating to this case  stands vacated. 

Pronounced in the open court of this Commission today on this 10^th. Day of    May, 2023 under the  seal  & signature of  this Commission.

Dictated and corrected  by me.

                                                                        PRESIDENT

A copy of this order be provided to all the parties at  free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,  2019 or they may download same from the confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of order received from this Commission.

The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

                                                                                                                                                                                                            PRESIDENT

 

PRONOUNCED ON  Dated.10.05.2023