IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 20thday of March, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 167/2020 (filed on 20/10/2020)
Petitioner : Praveen,
S/o. V.R. Madhusoodhanan,
Vayalil (H), Chirakkadavu,
Kottayam – 686519.
(Adv. Vineetha Narayanan and
Adv. RadhikaRajendran)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Ground Floor, AKR Infinity
Sy No.113, Krishna Reddy
Industrial Area, 7th Mile,
Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560068,
Karnataka.
2) Voice plus Support Services,
First Floor, Malikayil Building,
Opp. Mount Carmel L.P. School,
Kottayam – 686 004.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The case of the complainant is as follows.
The complainant had purchased Redmi 8A 2GB+32 GB model mobile phone from the Oxygen mobiles on 11-10-2019. During the initial month of purchase, performance of the phone was satisfactory, but after few months he noticed a display issue over his phone. The complainant thought that the problem would be resolved by itself, but later he noticed a severe display error on his phone. But due to pandemic situation petitioner was unable to take his phone for a repair immediately eventhough he noticed the error. In July 2020, the petitioner approached the service centre after noticing that there was a scratch on the right side of display on the touch screen. The service centre was initially ready to repair and the complainant handed over the mobile phone to them. The petitioner was informed by the service centre that his phone had software complaint and needed to be formatted. After one month, the petitioner approached the service centre as he was raising the same issue of display error. The service centre took the complainant’s phone to the service centreatErnakulam and returned back after one month by saying the problem is resolved. But the mobile phone was not working properly. When the complainant enquired for the reasons for the improper working condition of the mobile phone it was informed by the service centre that they shall not take responsibility to any damages eventhough the phone was under warranty period. The service centre was not ready to give proper answer. It is averred in the complaint that the product is damaged due to the manufacturing defect. The opposite party had failed to provide proper service and the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
Though notice was served to the opposite party, they did not care to appear before the Commission and contest the case. Therefore the opposite party is set exparte.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 and A2 were marked.
On evaluation of complaint, evidence on record, we would consider the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party?
- If so, what are reliefs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point no.1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2
On perusal of Ext.A1, we would see that the complainant had purchased a Redmi 8A 2GB+32 GB mobile phone from Oxygen mobiles at Ponkunnam on 11-10-2019. According to the complainant within a few months he noticed a display issue in his phone. It is submitted by the complainant in the proof affidavit that though he noticed the defects during to the pandamic situation he was unable to get the mobile phone repaired immediately after noticing the defects. It is submitted by the complainant that he had handed over the mobile phone to the service centre during July 2020. After inspecting his mobile phone the service centre informed the complainant that this phone has a software complaint and needed to be formatted. Ext.A2 is the service order dtd.15-07-2020 by the 2nd opposite party. On perusal of Ext.A2 we can see that the display of the mobile phone showed problem with self touching. The complainant submitted that though the phone was sent to Ernakulam service centre to cure the defect it was returned to the complainant by stating that the defect was rectified, however the problem of the phone is still existing. There is no evidence in contravention to the evidence adduced by the complainant that the phone having the same defect right now. In the absence of contrary evidence to prove that the defect of the phone was rectified by the opposite parties,we are not in a position to discard the evidence adduced by the complainant. We are of the opinion that the opposite parties has committed deficiency in service by not rectifying the defect of the phone of the complainant. In these circumstances we allow the complaint and pass the following order.
- We hereby direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to repair the mobile phone of the complainant as defect free condition.
- We hereby direct 2nd opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/-.
Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 20thday of March, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 :Purchase bill dtd.11-10-2019 issued by Orange mobiles
A2 :Service order dtd.15-07-2020 by 2nd opposite party..
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
