DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2023

Present  : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member             Date of filing: 07/11/2022                           

     CC/216/2022

Amal Raj M.R,

S/o Rajesh M.R,

Mundayil  (House)

Velikkad (Post),

Mundur,

Palakkad – 678 592                                                         -    Complainant

(By party in person)

V/s

1. The Manager,

   Customer Care, Xiami Technology India Pvt. Ltd.,

    Ground Floor, AKR infinity Sy No.113,

    Krishna Reddy Industrial Area,

7^th Mile, Hosur Road,

Bangalore – 560 068,

Karnataka.

2. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd.,

    Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor,

7^th May, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block

Koramangala Industrial Layout,

Bangalore – 560 034,

   Karnataka                                                                  -       Opposite parties

   (Both opposite parties Ex-parte)

O R D E R 

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief.        

      The complainant purchased a POCO-X2 phone manufactured by first opposite party, through the online platform of  2^nd opposite party. The phone was working well, but on 04.09.2022, the camera of the phone stopped working. When approached the service centre of the 1^st opposite party they demanded Rs.10,000/- for replacing the board since the warranty period of one year is already over. Though he contacted the POCO service center by way of e-mail, they also refused to provide free of cost service. According to the complainant the phone is having manufacturing defect and hence both the opposite parties are responsible for this. Hence he approached this Commission seeking a refund of the original cost of the phone along with a compensation of Rs. 35,000/-

2.   Though notices were sent to the opposite parties, they did not enter appearance, hence were set ex-parte.

3.   The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 & A2 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice of the mobile phone purchased and A2 is e-mail from POCO customer care.

4.   The tax invoice marked as Ext.A1 as mentioned above, has clearly mentioned that the Brand warranty of one year is available for the mobile phone and 6 months for accessories. Hence the opposite parties are not liable to attend the defect of the phone on warranty terms. Further the complainant has not taken any steps to prove that the defect of the camera is due to any manufacturing defect.

5.   Hence, in the absence of any evidence to prove a prima-facie case against the opposite parties, the complaint is dismissed. 

      Pronounced in open court on this the 3^rd day of July, 2023.

 Sd/-

                                                                                      Vinay Menon V

                                           President

Sd/-     

                                                                           Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                   Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1  : Tax Invoice dated 03/08/2020 for Rs.17499/-of the phone purchase.

Ext. A2  : E-mail dated 5/11/2022 from POCO Customer Care.

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party     : Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant          : Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party       : Nil

Court Witness: Nil

Cost:  Nil

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.