Orissa

Rayagada

CC/83/2019

Vijay Kumar Jeswani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi Techno Logy India Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri G.K Mallick

17 Dec 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA. 765 001

C.C. Case  No. 83 / 2019.                                         Date.   17 .12 . 2020.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                         President

Sri  Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                                     Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                            Member

 

Sri Vijaya  Kumar Jeswani, S/O: Heman Das Jeswani,  New Colony, Opposite  UCO Bank,  Po/Dist:Rayagada.                                                                                                                …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Manager, Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur Road Dankuni, DCC Hoogly, Near Dankuni Toll Tax, Hoogly, Pin No. 712 310, State: West Bengal.

2. The Manager,   Regd.  Office, Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.,  Orchid (Block –E), Ground  floor to 4^th. Floor, Embasy Tech. Village: Marthili-Sarjapur, Outer  Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India, 560103                                  .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Sri  G.K.Mallick , Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps  :- Set exparte.

                                                          J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of  price  towards  Xiaomi Redmi Note 6 pro mobile set which was not functioning within the warranty period. The brief facts of the case  has  summarised here under.

          That the  complainant  had purchased a  Xiaomi Redmi Note 6  pro mobile set from the O.P. No. 1  through on line  by paying cash payment of Rs.12,798/- having  one year warranty  bearing  tax invoice No. 3365344  on Dt. 8 .5.2019. The complainant booked the same through the O.P. No.1 on Dt. 8.5.2019 vide order No. 519050891147048201. The booking company  had delivered the same during the month of May, 2019  in the residential address of the complainant.  The IMEI Nos of the said phone are  (1) 869865040738938 (2) 869865040738948.  The above set  became  defunct  with in warranty period with a  following  defects i.e. Touch screen  was not functioning.  Inspite of repeated contact to the O.Ps they  paid deaf ear   for repair or  replacement of the above set and after rectification at Service centre in next day  again the same problem persisted for which  the mobile phone is not working.    Hence  this case. The complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps  to refund the purchase price of the above set  inter alia to pay  Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, litigation  expenses Rs.5,000/- and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

On being noticed  the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  10 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around  1 years for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. 

          Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

         FINDINGS.

.               From the records it reveals that, the  complainant  had purchased a  Xiaomi Redmi Note   6 Pro mobile set from the O.P. No. 1  through on line  by paying cash payment of Rs.12,798/- having  one year warranty  bearing  tax invoice No. 3365344  on Dt. 8 .5.2019 (copies of the  tax invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately within   the warranty period  the above  set found defective and not functioning  properly. The complainant complained the OPs  for necessary repair in turn the OPs  paid deaf  ear.  

.               From the records it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill which is in the file marked as Annexure-I.  Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant has repeatedly approached the OPs  for the defective of above  set with complaints where in the OPs. service centre   found defect & noted with a comment.

                On examining the whole transactions, it is pertinent to mention here that, there is One year valid warranty for the alleged above set and the defect arose  within warranty period. As the OPs deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 7(Seven)months and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complainant as adduced by the OPs. The forum relying on the version of the complainant is of the view that, the alleged  set has inherent defect and there is vivid deficiency in service by the OPs declining to redress the grievances of his consumers i.e.  the present complainant, hence the complainant is entitled to get the price of the said set along with such substantial compensation for all such harassment having been impounded with mental agony and deprivation of the use for the same  for long time  and so also the cost of litigation. We found there is deficiency in service by the OPs and the complainant is entitled to get relief.

                On appreciation of the evidences adduce before it, the forum is inclined to allow the complaint against the Ops.

                                                                                O R D E R

                In  resultant the complaint petition  stands  allowed  on exparte against the O.Ps.

                The  Opposite Parties  are directed to  take back the  Xiaomi Redmi Note  6 Pro  mobile set  and refund  the value  thereof  of Rs.12,798/- holding that mobile  was  having manufacturing  defects besides pay compensation of Rs.1,000/-  for mental agony undergone by the complainant and cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within  30   days   from the date of receipt of this order,

 

                The entire directions shall be carried out with in 30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.

                Dictated and  corrected by me.

                Pronounced in the open forum on             17 ^th.   day  of    December ,  2020.

 

 

                                                                                   MEMBER                                                PRESIDENT