SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER

    This is a complaint filed by the  Complainant under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction against the  OP to remit Rs.17999/- which was the purchase price of  mobile phone and  to pay Rs.75,000/- being the  compensation towards the mental agony and also pay cost of Rs.10,000/- towards the litigation.

     The complainant in brief :-

  On  4/3/2021, complainant  purchased POCOX3 mobile phone worth Rs.17999/- through online.  The complainant availed the service of  mobile phone uninterruptedly during the warranty period .  During those period complainant got software updates and he updated phone accordingly and never faced any difficulties with the usage of phone.  After the warranty period, complainant got updations of software and to increase the performance level of the phone he updated his phone.  The complainant sent an email to OP stating that the software updates are automated and the company will be the responsible for the same.  But no reply was received by complainant.  After few weeks complainant experienced that the front camera stopped functioning.  At the very outset, complainant contacted POCO customer care and got advise to approach  nearby service centre.  Accordingly complainant  approached service centre and on the perusal no physical damage found by service center.  And they issued a service record certifying that the difficulty arise due to the updation of software.  But they are not ready to replace the phone and complainant contacted customer care and got bad response.  The complainant is a IT professional and he depends his phone for  all official purpose and not in a position buy a new phone.  The complainant sustained hardships and mental agony due to the deficiency in service happened from the side of OP.  Hence this complaint.

   After filing the complaint, notice was issued to OP . OP received the notice but not appeared before the commission and not filed any version.  The commission had to  held that OP had no version as such in this case came to be proceed against the OP as set exparte. 

         Even though, the opposite party has  remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the  OP.  Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.  Accordingly the complainant  has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 6 documents marking as Exts.A1 to A6 and also MO1(mobile phone) produced and the complainant was examined as PW1. So the OP remain absent in this case.  At the end the commission heard the case on merits.

          Let us have a clear glance  in to the evidence produced by the complainant to establish his case even though the OP was set ex-parte.  Accordingly Ext.A1, the tax invoice issued by a seller reveal the purchase of mobile through online platform and its price.    As per Ext.A2, it is seen that complainant  addressed  the  issues of  his friends  through the  email and his anticipations regarding future issues if any.  According to the Ext.A3, it is seen that the fault description mentioned as “Front camera not working” after OTA update, issue with hardware need to  change MB.  No physical damage or any other defect mentioned in Ext.A3.  Hence Ext.A3 goes with the averment in complaint regarding the defect of front camera and updation  of software leads malfunctioning.  Moreover, the complainant admits that the warranty period of phone was expired.  Here in the case complainant approached the manufacturer to replace the phone not the seller.  According to complainant, the company gives the automated up gradation of software and it lead to the malfunctioning of device and customer care of OP misbehaved with complainant and not rectified his issue even after several attempts including lawyer notice(Ext.A4) etc.  The commission had given a fair chance to OP  being the head of Xiaomi phone, the manufacturer , to defend and place their contentions, result in exparte.  Here according to  Ext.A3,  the commission  came into a conclusion that the OP is liable to rectify the defect as mentioned in the Ext.A3 since the manufacturer has also the liability towards the customer, failure of this  results in deficiency in service.

         In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite party is    directed to rectify the defect of MO1 as mentioned in Ext.A3 within one month from this date of order.  In default to pay purchase price of MO1 worth Rs.17999/- at liberty to take back the MO1 from the commission and also to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation  and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation to complainant  within  30 days from the date of  receipt  of this order,   failing which the   complainant shall be  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts

A1-Tax invoice

A2-copy of  email

A3- service record

A4- lawyer notice

MO1-Mobile phone

PW1-Vishal.P-complainant

Sd/                                                        Sd/                                                       Sd/

PRESIDENT                                   MEMBER                                                 MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                   Molykutty Mathew.                                      Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                      /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR