By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Complaint in short is as follows: -
The complainant purchased Xiaomi Redmi K20 Pro through online from Flipkart
Store on 09/09/2019 at a price of Rs. 30,999/-. On 23/03/2020, the display of phone turned to black and stopped working. Due to covid-19 pandemic lock down declared by the government, the complainant could not approach the authorised service centre in time, but approached only on 05/05/2020. The complainant said to the service person that the phone had never fallen nor had any accidental water damage. But after the initial examination, the service person informed the complainant that the problem to the mobile phone was caused due to internal damage. Since the phone was under warranty, the service centre registered a complaint with Mi India. Meantime, the complainant sent an email to Mi India seeking a resolution. But the service centre and Mi India rejected the complaint and refused to repair or replace the mobile phone.
2. The complainant submits that, he was not caused any physical damage to the mobile phone, the issue might have been caused due to some manufacturing defects. The complainant submits that, he suffered a lot of inconvenience and hardships due to the breach of contract by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant prayed for the replacement or repair of the phone or a full refund of Rs. 30,999/-along with cost of Rs. 5000/-.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was sent to the opposite parties and on receipt of notice the first opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The second opposite party did not turn up and so set exparte.
4. The first opposite party submitted that the complainant produced the defective mobile phone before the first opposite party and on receipt of the phone, proper receipt for the acceptance of the mobile phone was given to the complainant. The opposite party immediately forwarded the complaint to Component Technical Authority and the rejection of service record properly recorded also. As per document the cause for the screen blackening of the mobile phone and de-functioning of the same was caused to Liquid Crystal Display Module component damage. Such a defect can be caused only due to sudden fall or a high impact only during the use of mobile phone. So the defect caused to the mobile phone due to the negligent use by complainant. The manufacturing company of the mobile phone sent a message to the opposite party confirming the same. The opposite party issued service record to the complainant stating the above facts which is produced by complainant along with complaint. The perusal of service record will reveal that there was no manufacturing defect to the mobile phone and the defect was caused due to LCM and which is a result of negligent use of mobile phone. So the submission of the opposite party is that the mobile phone does not have warranty protection. The opposite party duly informed the complainant the said fact. If the complainant has got any further grievance the complainant is entitled to approach the manufacturer. The submission of the opposite party is that in the absence of manufacturing defect to the mobile phone, the opposite party is not able to rectify the defect of mobile phone free of cost or replace the mobile phone as per law.
5. The opposite party submitted that the defect caused to the mobile phone was due to improper and negligent use by the complainant. So there is no manufacturing defects or deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. Hence the complainant is not entitled any relief as prayed in the complaint. The opposite party immediately on receipt of the defective mobile phone took a photo of the defective phone and sent to the complaint technical authorities. The opposite party issued service record stating the rejection of warranty received from manufacturing company and so the prayer is to dismiss this complaint.
6. The complainant and first opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is copy of tax invoice for Rs. 30,999/- dated 04/09/2019. Ext. A2 is copy of service record dated 05/05/2020. Ext. A3 is service report by technician Mr. Jishnu.M, MYG, Nilambur, the service head. The second opposite party did not file documents.
7. Heard complainant and first opposite party, perused affidavits and documents. The following points arise for consideration: -
Whether the mobile phone was defective?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
Reliefs and cost.
8. Point No.1 and 3
The grievance of the complainant is that, he purchased mobile phone on 09/09/2019 through online which is manufactured by the second opposite party. The same became defective on 23/03/2020 and it became impossible to see anything in the mobile phone. The mobile screen turned into black and also became dead. The mobile has got one year warranty and so approached the first opposite party for service on 05/05/2020. The opposite parties denied service under warranty coverage stating that there is internal crack and that may be caused by careless handling by the complainant itself and so they returned the mobile phone without rectifying the defect. The complainant submits that there was nothing happened to the mobile phone from the side of complainant. The complainant submitted that the defect caused during the valid period of warranty. According to complainant the mobile phone has got one year warranty. The opposite party not disputing the validity of warranty for the one year. The contention of the first opposite party is that the defect caused to the mobile phone is not covered under warranty since according to them caused due to the act of the complainant. The complainant herein produced Ext.A3 document to show the condition of the mobile phone. Ext. A3 is a duly examined report regarding the defect of the mobile phone issued by one Mr.Jishnu.M, service head of MYG Nilambur. He has reported in Ext. A3 as follows:-
There are no scratches in the screen.
There is no wear and tears on the body.
No scratches in the body.
No signs of physical or water damage.
No display /display not working.
He has stated that, he examined the defective mobile phone on 10/09/2020. So the perusal of Ext. A3 reveals there is no external damages to the mobile phone. If the contention of the first opposite party is taken as correct there is every chance for noting external damages to the mobile phone. So the contention of the first opposite party is not with merit and cannot be accepted. There is no document to show that the defect was caused to the mobile phone due to the careless handling by the complainant. So the contention of the complainant stands proved through the Ext.A1
to A3. We find that the mobile phone of the complainant was with manufacturing
defects as alleged by the complainant.
9. The complainant had filed IA 191/2020 to consider the complaint in a priority basis considering that is an engineering students and he is high in need of mobile phone. Since classes are conducted through online during the relevant period. It is to be noted that the complainant a professional students purchased the mobile phone on 09/09/2019. But which became defective within 5 months that is on 23/03/2020. It is also to be noted that the cost of the mobile phone is Rs.30,999/-. Hence the defects caused to the mobile phone might have resulted great inconveniences and hardships to the complainant. The complainant duly approached the first opposite party for the proper service of the mobile phone. But the opposite parties denied the service raising hyper technical contentions. There is no evidence on the part of the opposite parties to establish their contention. The denial of the service by the opposite parties amounts deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant is entitled to redress the grievance.
10. The complainant prayed rectification of defects or to replace or refunding of the mobile cost. The complainant also prayed for the cost of the proceedings.
11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice we allow this complaint as follows:-
The second opposite party is directed to refund the cost of mobile phone Rs. 30,999/- (Rupees Thirty thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) to the complainant.
The opposite party No.1 and 2 are directed to pay cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest on the cost of mobile phone Rs. 30,999/- at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till date of payment.
Dated this 6th day of February, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A3
Ext.A1: Copy of tax invoice for Rs. 30999/- dated 04/09/2019.
Ext.A2: Copy of service record dated 5/5/2020.
Ext A3: Service report by technician Mr. Jishnu.M, MYG, Nilambur, the service
Centre.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
