D.O.F:25/04/2023     

                                                                                                              D.O.O:28/06/2024

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD

                                  CC.110/2023

Dated this, the 28^th day of June 2024

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA. K.G                                      : MEMBER

Krishna Kumar. K,

C/o Premalatha.K,

Anugraha, Edamunda,

Haripuram (P.O),

Anandashramam (Via), 671531                                  : Complainant

Kanhangad.

                                                                                And

1.Xiomi Technology Inida Private Limited

Building Orchid Block

Embassy Tech Village Mahathahali outer Ring Road,

Devarabisanahalli,

Bangaluru – 560103.

(Adv: Vipin P Varghese)

2. The Service Manager,

Smart X, Noor Plaza,

Building No Wi,1152,H3, Kottachery,                          : Opposite Parties

Kanhangad, Kasaragod

ORDER

SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT

          The complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act,

          The case of the complaint is that he purchased a mobile phone, Redmi A1 Mobile Smart X from Noor Plaza Kanhangad and found that the camera of the phone was defective and green colour was coming on the camera while taking photos  like in old CD players videos.   He approached the service centre to solve the problem, he could not get the recording while hickering.  After three months camera has became dark and he could not take video is unlighted near and with full brightness  the problem is not solved fully.  Again he approached the service centre and they changed the board, even after changing the board the video darkness issue is still there.  Video of camera becoming dark and green Colour.   There is a manufacturing defect of the mobile and he seeks the value of phone Rs 6499/- and compensation  of Rs.20,000/-.

          The Opposite Party No:1 and 2 not filed version is stipulated time.  Therefore no version readed.

          The complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext A1 to A3 documents marked.  Ext A1is the tax invoice, Ext A2 is the service record, Ext A3 is the service order.

          In view of the contentions following points arised for consideration.

1. Whether complainant is entrusted the phone for repair?
2. Whether the mobile suffer any manufacturing defect?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service?  Whether complainant entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?

     All the points considered together:

     The complainant in his complaint contended that he has entrusted his mobile phone for repair with the opposite Party.  The Opposite Party issued Ext A2 service record and Ext A3 service order dated 25/03/2023 and Ext A1 shows that mobile purchased on 04/01/2023 but still video darkness issue is there even after changed of board.  Camera becomes dark and green colour.  All major complaints are not repaired Opposite party has at any time not informed the complainant that repair is already completed, or that so much is the service charges.  Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that complainant entrusted the Samsung mobile to Opposite party, and Opposite Party is liable to return the Samsung mobile of the complainant after necessary repair.  Point No:1 found in favour of the complainant.  No expert reports to prove manufacturing defect.

          The  evidence discloses that mobile hand set is not yet repaired fully therefore there is negligence in the service of opposite party in this matter.

          Considering the fact that having collected the mobile phone for service and not caring to repair or attend to its service and when approached by complainant the opposite Party No:1 without justifiable reasons amounts to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of Opposite party No:1 for which complainant is entitled for compensation and also complainant is entitled for cost of litigation.

          In this case there is no evidence to prove the manufacturing defect no steps taken by the complainant to prove the allegation.  Hence complainant is not entitled for refund of the price of mobile.  Considering the circumstances of the case complainant is entitled compensation for deficiency in service and cost of the litigation.

          In the result complaint is allowed in part Opposite Party No:1 is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.  The opposite Party No:2 exonerated from liability.

       Sd/-                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                            PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Tax invoice

A2- Service order

A3- Service Record

     Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                      Assistant Registrar

Ps/