Hon’ble Mr. Rumpa Mandal, Member.

The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant named Debabrata Mallik as per advertisement booked a mobile Vide model No. Redmi Note 10 Pro Glacial Blue GB RAM 64 GB ROM, Good ID-31775, HSN Code-85171211 of Rs.15,999/- and O.P. No.1 delivered vide invoice No.C011890003110539 dated 14.06.21 and the Complainant paid the amount from the OP(As per Annexure-A). The O.P. No.1 issued warranty card for the period of one year(As per Annexure-B). After purchasing of ten days Complainant saw some spot was started in display board. So the Complainant met with O.P. No.1 & 3 and as per instruction of O.P. No.1 & 3 Complainant deposited the total set before the O.P. No.2 i.e. Service Centre and received the said mobile from Complainant(Copy of service order is Annexure-C) within the warranty period O.P. No.2 illegally charged Rs.5,874/- from the Complainant on 01.07.2021 due to urgent need of mobile on the pretext(Money receipt in Annexure-D) on 25.06.21 Complainant filed complaint before the O.Ps through Gmail regarding all the fact (Annexure-E is the copy of Gmail complaint). On 03.07.21 MI India customers support replied the same and OP stated that within short period the mobile will be replaced but till today O.Ps illegally did not do proper service(Copy of reply is the Annexure-F).

Subsequently, Complainant further sent complaint on 07.07.21 but till today O.Ps did not refund back the received amount (Copy of complaint dated 07.07.21 is Annexure-G). Again Complainant submitted battery on 07.07.21 due to battery problem (Annexure-H is the copy of service order). Till today OP did not return the service charge amount and the above noted mobile does not work properly. So the Complainant states that the above activities is clearly deficiency in service. The cause of action in the present case arose on 14.06.21 when the Complainant purchased the said mobile and on 24.06.21 when the O.P. No.2 received the said mobile as well as received service charge and it is still continuing. The Complainant therefore prayed for an order against the OP to provide proper service or refund the cost of mobile  set of Rs.15,999/- and also directed the O.P. No.2 to refund back service charge of Rs.5,874/- with up to date interest and further directed the O.Ps to pay Rs.20,000/- as deficiency in service and as cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.

As per order No.12 dated 29.06.2022 and order No.17 dated 20.01.2023 the case is decided to be heard ex-parte against O.P. No.1 & 2 respectively.

The Complainant in order to establish the case proved the following documents in evidence.

Annexure-1 is the warranty card wherefrom it appears that the product(mobile) warranty is for one year and battery warranty is six months.

Annexure-2 is tax invoice dated 14.06.21 in the name of the Complainant for Rs.15,999/-.

Annexure-3 is the service record dated 27.07.21 in the name of the Complainant with complaint of battery fault.

Annexure-4 is also the service record dated 07.07.21 regarding Complainant of fault in main screen colour spot.

The major allegation of the new product fault stands duly proved by oral and documentary evidence.

The entire oral and documentary evidence stands unchallenged and un-discarded in as much as the case is heard ex-parte.

The date of purchase of the defective product is 19.06.21 and the date of detection of fault is 07.07.21 which is well within one year of the purchase. So, the fault in the product was detected within one year of purchase i.e. within the warranty period. So, the OP manufacturer/ dealer/ seller is bound to replace the product or repair it at free of cost. But from the service record it found that OP charged Rs.5,874.04/- which is not payable by the Complainant. Having assessed the entire oral evidence in the form of affidavit in chief and documentary evidence of the Complainant it stands well established that the Complainant successfully proved the case against the O.P. No.1 & 2. Both the O.Ps failed to discard the specific allegation against them. So, the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to provide proper service to the Complainant i/d to refund the cost of mobile alongwith compensation and cost.

Hence, it is

Ordered

That the complaint case No. CC/30/2021 be and the same is allowed ex-parte with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

The O.P. No.1 & 2 are directed to repair the said mobile of the Complainant at free of cost within one month from the date of Final Order in default to refund Rs.15,999/- to the Complainant  with a fresh warranty as applicable for a new product. The O.P. No.1 is further directed that in the event of failure to comply with the order he shall refund Rs.25,874/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of Final Order till the realization within 30 days from the Final Order.

D.A. to note in the trial Register.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.

The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.