D.O.F:11/07/2022
D.O.O:15/03/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.146/2022
Dated this, the 15th day of March, 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Al Ameen. A,
S/o Abdulla,
Ahammad Quarters, : Complainant
Chembarikka,
Chandragiri.P.O,
Kasaragod- 671317.
And
- Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.,
Plot.No. 47,
Arjav Ind Warehouse park,
Dankuni
Kolkotta, West Bangal- 712311.
: Opposite Parties
- Metro Tech (Service Centre)
Ground Floor,
Golden Arcade,
New Bus Stand,
Kasaragod- 671121
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The complainant is alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party in connection with insufficient after sale service given to his mobile phone.
The brief facts of the case is that:-The complainant purchased MI1(Xiaomi) Mobile phone on 15/06/2021 for Rs.17,449/-. After six months of purchase the camera of the mobile phone became defective and entrusted with the Opposite Party for repair in their own service center on 28/01/2022. The service center, after examination informed that the mother board of the mobile phone is damaged, and replaced the mobile phone. After three months that phone also became hang and none of the apps responding. The Complainant approached the service center again on 29/04/2022 and the center requested him to format the phone. After doing format the same complaint repeated. And the service center changed the software and given to him. But the same complaint repeated so the mother board is again changed after 20 days the same complaint repeated and complaint is registered in the toll free number of Opposite Party. It is informed to the Complainant that the higher authority will solve the complaint very soon. But Opposite Party did not contacted the complainant. The Complainant again approached the so-called ‘higher authority’, and according to their direction again the mobile phone is entrusted to the service center. Then the service center informed the complainant that the mother board is defective and as the warranty is over they will charge for the repair. After some days the mobile became switch off and given to the service center. After the examination Opposite Party No.2 informed that the mother board is again got damaged and an amount of Rs.10,000/- is the service charge. As a regular customer they offered deduction to the Complainant and agreed to provide service for Rs.7,500/-. The Complainant is fed up with the servicing of the mobile phone. The complaint started after 6 months of purchase of the said mobile phone. Even though the Complainant approached opposite party many times for repair of the said mobile they had done some temporary repairs and thus the issue repeated. Hence the Complainant is seeking adequate compensation for the mental agony and loss suffered by him due to the said mobile phone.
Notice issued to both Opposite Parties and Opposite Party No.2 served the notice but remained absent. Name of Opposite Parties called absent set exparte.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext.A1 to A7. The questions raised for consideration are :-
- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- If so what is the relief?
The grievance of the Complainant is that he purchased mobile phone (Xiaomi) From Opposite Party on 15/06/2021 for Rs.17,449/-. After 6 months of purchase the camera of the said mobile phone became defective and entrusted to their own service center. The Opposite Party No.2 replaced the mobile phone as its mother board got damaged. Again, after three months the phone became hang and none of the apps were responding. The phone is given to the service center. There after many times the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 with issues regarding the said mobile phone and the Opposite Party No.2 temporarily solved the issues. Soon after the warranty period Opposite Party No.2 informed the Complainant that the mother board of the mobile phone is got damaged and an amount of Rs.10,000/- is necessary for servicing the same. Ext.A1 is the Tax invoice, Ext.A2 is the Service Record, Ext.A3 is the Service order dated 29/04/2022,Ext.A4 is the service record dated 25/05/2022, ExtA5 is also service record, Ext.A6 and A7 are service orders. After spending Rs.17,499/- the Complainant purchased the said mobile phone believing the quality of the same. But continuous complaints of the mobile phone caused mental agony to the Complainant. Ext.A1 to A7 clearly proves that the service given by the Opposite party No.2 was not good. The Complainant’s loss and agony has to be compensated. Ext.A1 to A7 proves that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. The Complainant is eligible to use the mobile phone for a reasonable period of time comparing the price paid for it. He is eligible to get a defect free mobile phone from Opposite Party No.1.
In the result complaint is allowed directing Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to give a defect free mobile phone of the same model to the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 is directed to give a compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) to the Complainant.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of copy of this judgment
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1: Tax invoice
A2: Service Record
A3: Service Order
A4: Service Record
A5: Service Record
A6: Service Order
A7: Service Order
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
