D.O.F:13/05/2022

                                                                                                  D.O.O:10/11/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.No.90/2022

Dated this, the 10^th day of November 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Abin Roy, aged 26 years

S/o Roy

Monarch gold and diamonds

Old gold Bus Stand, Kasaragod ( Dist)                : Complainant

(Adv: Babuchandran.K)

                                                                                     And

XIAOMI Technology Inida Pvt. Ltd

Orchid (Block E) Ground Floor

To 45 Floor, Embassy Tech Village

Outer ring road, Bangalore – 560067                   : Opposite Party

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ORDER

 SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER

The complainant purchased an LED TV 4X Pro from the Opposite Party through on line on 03/10/2019 by paying Rs. 37,709/-.   The Opposite Party also collected Rs. 1,154/- towards the one year extended warranty.  The Opposite Party had given two year warranty for the product.  Within 5 months of purchase the complainant noticed vibrations and lines on the panel board and the complainant contacted Opposite Party.  As the Opposite Party have no service station in Kasaragod District and nearby district, complainant searched a customer care number and informed his complaints to Opposite Party.  The complainant collected the contact number of Opposite Party from MY G electronics and registered the complaint on 21/10/21.  The technician of Opposite Party visited the house of the complainant on 26/102021 and after inspection informed that the panel board of the TV has to be replaced, for which Opposite Party demanded price which is almost equal to the price of a new brand TV.  The TV supplied by the Opposite Party went out of order during warranty period and the complainant had contacted and reported the defects during warranty period.  The complainant caused to send a lawyer notice to the Opposite Party on 05/11/2021.  But Opposite Party neither sent any reply no complied the demands made in the notice.  The complainant alleges deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party in providing service to the complainant for which he is seeking compensation of Rs. 10,000/- with a new brand Mi LED TV 4X Pro with cost of the proceedings.

            The notice of Opposite Party served but he was absent, name of Opposite Party called absent set exparte. 

            The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination Ext A1 to A3 marked.

            The issues raised for the consideration are

1. Whether there is deficiency of service /negligence on the part of Opposite Party?
2. Whether the complainant entitled for relief?
3. If so what is the reliefs?

For convenience question No 1 to 3 can be discussed together.

The allegation of the complainant is that he purchased a TV from Opposite Party and after five months of purchase the panel board of the TV became defective even though complaint is registered with customer care centre, Opposite Party has not taken any steps to cure the defects in warranty period.The technician of Opposite Party visited the complainant on 26/10/2021 and after inspection informed that the panel board of the TV has to be replaced.The Opposite Party demanded the price of the panel board which is almost equal to the price of a new brand TV.The complainant alleges that demanding such a huge amount during warranty period is deficiency in service.The complainant produced tax invoice issued by Opposite Party as Ext A1 the lawyer notice sent on behalf of the complainant to Opposite Party is Ext A2 and the postal acknowledgment is Ext A3.Ext A1 proves the purchase of the the TV from Opposite Party Ext A2 proves that the defects of the TV is informed to the Opposite Party, and A3 is the postal acknowledgment card.The case of the complainant is established by Ext A1 to A3.

In the absence of rebuttal evidence we found that there is serious deficiency of service and negligence on the part of Opposite Party.The Opposite Party had not made any steps to cure the defects of the TV even after receiving Ext A2 lawyer notice. The complainant the purchaser of the TV suffered huge loss and mental agony after spending Rs. 37709/- he could use the TV only for five months.Moreover Opposite Party had collected Rs.1154/- towards one year extended warranty.But Opposite Party failed to provide proper service in time.Due to the deficiency of service and negligence on the part of Opposite Party complainant suffered huge loss and mental agony.Certainly the complainant is entitled for relief. The complainant is entitled to get a new brand Mi Led TV 4Xpro with compensation and cost.

In the result complaint is allowed directing Opposite Party to give a new brand TV Mi Led TV 4XPro with Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation along with Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBERMEMBERPRESIDENT

Exhibits

     A1- Tax Invoice

     A2- Lawyer notice

     A3- Acknowledgment card

           Sd/-                                                           Sd/-                                                           Sd/-

     MEMBER                                                 MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

Ps/