D.O.F:25/07/2022

                                                                                                  D.O.O:05/12/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.No.165/2022

Dated this, the 5^th day of December 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Sreeraj.P.S  aged 30 years

S/o P.S.Easwaran Namboodiri

Residing at Sreeragam House                              : Complainant

Chirappuram Balavadi Road

Nileshwar Post, Hosdurg Taluk

Kasaragod District, PIN- 671 314

Adv: K.K.Mohammed Shafi)

And

1. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited

Embassy Tech Village – 1

Block – E, Orchid

Devarabisanahalli, Bellandur

Bengaluru, Karnataka

PIN – 560 103                                               : Opposite Parties

2. Service Centre Technician

‘Smart X’

Authorized Service Centre

Noor Plaza Building

Kottachery, Kanhangad

PIN – 671 315

ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G    : MEMBER

Facts of the Case:-

            The complainant purchased Mi 11 ultra 5g smart phone on 17/07/2021 from the Opposite Party No: 1in the name of his father for Rs. 69,999/- Warranty offered to the above product is for a period of one year from 17/07/21 to 16/07/22. On 13/06/2022 a pink line appeared  in the display of smart phone and he approached Opposite Party No:1, the authorized service centre with the complaint .  Opposite Party No:2 conducted quality check and after that they suggested to change the display.  The estimated amount informed by Opposite Party No:2 is Rs. 29,000/- As there is no other way the complainant agreed for the same.  The complainant is working in a Wipro IT company Opposite Party No:2 collected an amount of Rs. 2000/- towards service charge.  The complainant was a further informed that as per the service policy of Opposite Party No: 1 compliance to smart phone shall be rectified within the outer time limit of 10 days.  Complainant frequently contacted the Opposite Party No: 2 enquiring about the availability of new display.  Finally on 29/06/2022 Opposite Party No: 2 called the complainant informing the receipt of new display and asked to bring the smart phone of the complainant to the service centre.  After quality checkup Opposite Party informed that smart phone does not boot and the same is due to compliant of mother board.  Opposite Party again open the job sheet on 30/06/2022 and informed that cost of mother board will come around 70% of the price of the smart phone.  As the display is not rectified mother board complaint will not cover the warranty benefits.  As per the information from Opposite Party the cost display comes to Rs. 29,000/- and estimated cost of mother board will come Rs. 48,000/-.  Due to the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party the complainant suffered untold misery and monitory loss.  So the complainant is seeking for a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a direction against Opposite Party No: to rectify the complaints of the smart phone free of cost with compensation and cost of proceedings.

            Notice of Opposite Party No: 1 and 2 served but absent, name of Opposite Parties called absent et exparte.

            The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination Ext A1 to A4 marked.  Heard the complainant.  The question raised for a consideration are

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?
3. If so what is the relief?

     The allegation of the complainant is that his 5G smart phone purchased from Opposite Party No:1 for Rs. 69,999/- became defective during warranty period (within 1 year of purchase).  The Opposite Party No:1 after checking the phone, demanded         Rs. 48,000/- for rectification of damaged mother board.  According to the complainant he need not pay such a huge amount during warranty period.  Ext A1 is the online print out of tax invoice issued to the complainant by the Opposite Party, Ext A2 is the copy of the service order issued the complainant from the service center Smart X Kanhangad, Ext A3 the copy of the service order issued to the complainant from the service center Smart X Kanhangad.  While perusing the documents Ext A2 and A3 it is clear that Opposite Party failed to cure the defects of the mobile phone in time and demanded huge amount for replacement of display and mother board during warranty period. This amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party.  Due to the irresponsible acts of Opposite Party complainant suffered huge loss and mental agony.  The complainant has sent Rs. 69,999/- for the purchase of the aforesaid phone.  But he could use the device below one year.  The prayer of the complainant is to rectify the defects of the phone free of cost with compensation and cost.  The Opposite Party simply dragged to cure the phone such a long period.  Considering the gravity of the latches on the part of the Opposite Party they are bound to give compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant.

      Therefore the complaint is allowed directing Opposite Party to rectify the defects of the smart phone MI 11 ultra 5 G free of cost and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with a cost of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant.

      Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of copy of this judgment.

     Sd/-                                                 Sd/-                                Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Exhibits

            A1- Online print of tax invoice

A2- Copy of the Service order

A3- Copy of the Service order

      Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                              Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

Ps/                                                                              Assistant Registrar