DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2023.
Filed on: 25/08/2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 239/2020
COMPLAINANT
Ajas P.K., S/o. P.A. Koya, Pulimoottil Parambil House, Chuttupadukara, Edappally P.O., Kochi 682024.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIIES
- XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Orchid (Block E), Ground Floor to 4th Floor, embassy Tech Village, Marathahalli, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bangalore 560103.
- EKART LOGISTICS, Brigade ManageCourt, 1st Floor, No. 111, Koramangala Industrial Layout, Bangalore 560095.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President:
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complaint involves the purchase of a Xiaomi Redmi 8A Dual Sea Blue phone by the complainant from the Mi Store app on July 21, 2020. The phone, priced at Rs 8,999, was to be delivered via Ekart Logistics, with a delivery deadline of July 31 or August 2 according to different sources. However, after initial shipment confirmation, there were no further updates, and the item remained at the Mother Hub in Gurgaon since July 23. Despite repeated contact with Xiaomi's customer service and assurances of delivery within 72 hours or 4-5 working days, the complainant experienced significant delays and a lack of proper updates.
The complainant filed a complaint with the consumer helpline on August 2 and received a grievance number. Xiaomi's response to the grievance was that delivery would occur within 72 hours, but this deadline was not met. The complainant was advised by the consumer helpline on August 17 to file a case in consumer court due to Xiaomi's unfulfilled promises.
The complainant alleges that Xiaomi, despite being a leading smartphone brand in India, is not fulfilling its promises and is not providing refunds, thus disregarding customer rights. They are suing Xiaomi Technologies and Ekart Logistics for the purchase amount, mental agony experienced over a month of persistent follow-ups, and costs incurred for documentation, totalling Rs.14,000/-.
2) Notice
The Commission issued notices to the opposite parties. The notice sent to Opposite Party Number 1 was returned with the 'Addressee Left' as per the endorsement of the Postal Department. The notice sent to Opposite Party Number 2 has not been served so far.
3) . Evidence
The complainant, in this case, has not submitted a proof affidavit.
4) The main points to be analyzed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant.
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
Since March 12, 2021, the complainant has been consistently absent. In response, the commission issued directives instructing the complainant to appear before the commission and provide the correct address of Opposite Party No. 2. A notice was dispatched to the complainant on March 16, 2023. Despite opportunities extended, the complainant has neither supplied the requisite address for Opposite Party No. 2 nor appeared before the commission subsequently. Multiple opportunities have been afforded to the complainant to proceed with the case, but there has been no interest shown in doing so.
Notices were issued by the commission to Opposite Party No. 1 on August 24, 2020, and July 1, 2023. The notice addressed to Opposite Party No. 1 was returned, marked 'Addressee Left' according to the postal department's endorsement. To date, the notice for Opposite Party No. 2 remains unserved, with the complainant having failed to provide a valid address for this party.
The commission is bound by the principles of natural justice, which include adherence to the 'audi alteram partem' rule. This principle ensures that all involved parties are accorded a fair chance to present their case and respond to allegations.
The legal maxim "vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt" (The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep.) is highly significant in consumer cases. It stresses the importance of being proactive and diligent in protecting one's rights and interests in legal matters. By actively safeguarding their rights, individuals are more likely to receive legal support compared to those who neglect their responsibilities. In consumer cases, this maxim emphasizes the need for consumers to be vigilant and attentive when facing potential legal issues, ensuring they protect their rights as buyers.
After careful consideration, it has been determined that the complainant's case lacks merit. The issues above mentioned (i) to (iii) have also not been resolved in the complainant's favour. Consequently, the following orders are issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27th day of November, 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
kp/
Despatch date:
By hand:
by post:
C.C. No. 239/2020
Order date: 27/11/2023
