D.O.F:22/11/2021
D.O.O:19/12/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.217/2021
Dated this, the 19th day of December 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G :MEMBER
Jithin.S
B.K Nilayam Kolari
P.O Nekraje
Kasaragod
671543 : Complainant
And
1. Xiaomi India Building Orchid,
Block E, Embassy Tech village,
Marathahilli Quter ring road,
Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru
Karnataka.
(Adv: Vipin Varghese & Gayathri.S.M )
2. Mi store Kanhangad
Marhaba Telecom
Solar Avenue north Kottachery
Mar road Kanhangad
3. Mi Service centre
Railway Station Road
Noth Kottachery, Kanhangad : Opposite parties
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he is an engineering student of LBS. He decided to purchase a lap top for his study purpose, and purchased Redmi Notebook Horizon 14 i7 Lap top from Opposite Party No:2 on 24/02/2021 by paying Rs. 63500/- free bag and one year extra warranty was offered but computer alone is supplied to him. But after its use for one month it stopped working when went to service centre Opposite Party No:3, it is told to that its key board is in trouble and replied that home service is stopped due to covid-19. Hence delivered the lap top for repairs. They promised new key board. Though additional warranty is claimed it is rejected. The Opposite Party played unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Due to which complainant suffered much. He could not use the lap top for study purpose which caused much problems. The complainant claim refund of the price paid to lap top and compensation.
Notice of Opposite Parties served but remained absent set exparte. And Opposite Party No:1 filed IA 116/2022 to set aside exparte order and it is allowed.
The opposite Party No:1 filed written version. The Opposite Party No:1 denied all the averments and allegations in the complaint and raised the issue of maintainability of the complaint. And stated that no evidence as to who purchased the laptop. The defect of the laptop is not within the period of warranty.
The complainant is trying to get over the complaint made by him seeking the benefits of warranty which is not acceptable. The complainant should be put to strict proof of the allegation raised. There is no negligence on the part of the product manufactured by opposite party, as alleged by complainant.
The complainant has in the complaint itself stated that there was a bent in the laptop. The keyboard damage as alleged by the complainant has caused due to his own negligence and the complainant is now trying to shift the burden on the Opposite party and trying to get the product replaced. There is no deficiency in service from opposite have prayed the dismiss the complaint.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Pw1Ext A1 to A4 documents marked from his side. Ext A1 is the invoice issued by Opposite Party No:2. Ext A2 is the extended warranty, Ext A3 and A4 screenshot of communication with Opposite party.
The Opposite Party has not adduced any evidence.
Considering rival contention following point arised for consideration in the case.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from Opposite Party?
- Whether complainant is entitled for refund of the price paid to laptop?
- Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?
The Complainant admittedly purchased the laptop manufactured by Opposite Party No:1 and sold through opposite party No:2 when a branded computer is manufactured it is duty bound to provide its services. The Opposite party assured extended on year warranty evidenced by Ext A2. The laptop could not its work due to defects and its key board also not working. When approached the service centre they clarified the defect that product is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. When reported the problem no positive response from Opposite party and hence complaint is filed. The Opposite Party failed to provide after sales service as promised. The complainant being an engineering student is made to suffer. He could not use the product for his study purpose. Till date after filing the complaint no attempt was made the rectify defect or provide service. It is true that there is steps taken by the complainant to prove the manufacturing defect, but the product stopped its working within one month of the date of purchase. The complainant approached Opposite parties to cure the defects within the warranty period even though there is no expert report commission is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint. There is serious negligence and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite parties for which opposite parties are liable to pay compensation.
In the result complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to refund Rs. 61,000/-(Rupees sixty one thousand only) amount paid to laptop shown in the Ext A1 bill. The complainant is directed to approach Opposite party No:2 with defective laptop mentioned in the Ext A1 bill on receiving the amount complainant has to hand over the product to opposite party No:2. The Opposite Party No:1 to 2 is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Invoice
A2- Extended warranty
A3 & A4 – Screenshot of communication
Witness Examined
Pw1- Jithin.S
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
