DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2022
Filed on: 29/08/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri. V. Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC.No. 330/2019
Between
COMPLAINANT
Rajeev K.D., Kannacheril House, Udayamperoor P.O., PIN 682307.
(Rep. by M/s. Sukumaran & Usha, Advocates, Kannachanthodu Road, Ayyappankavu, Cochin – 18)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD., Building Orchid-Block E, Embassy Tech Village, Devarabisanahalli, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru 560103. Rep. by its Manager.
(Rep. by Adv. John Mani V., CC-42/1558-D1, 2nd Floor, K.K. Building, Mathai Manjooran Road, Ernakulam 682018)
- Poornashree, Sreelaksmi Shopping Complex, Statue Jn., Thripunithura, Ernakulam 682301. Rep. by its Manager.
- TVS Electronics Ltd., Ground Floor, Sky Bright, Ravipuram, MG Road, Kochi 682016. Rep. by its Manager
O R D E R
V. Ramachandran, Member:
The complainant purchased Xiaomi Company’s smart phone brand Redmi Note 5 Black Me 17 from the 2nd opposite party on 04/06/2018 on payment of cost of Rs.12,499/-. There was one year warranty for the said smart phone. After 5 months from the date of purchase the said smart phone the screen colour of the phone began to changeas yellowish on the right hand top and it was spreading all over the display screen. The complainant contacted with the 2nd opposite party, from whom he had purchased the phone and as per their direction approached the 3rd opposite party who is an approved service centre of the phone company on 19/11/2018. The phone was entrusted with the service centre, the 3rd opposite party and it was returned duly serviced on 19/11/2018. Subsequently the very same problem occurred after 90 days that is on 19/02/2019 and the complainant entrusted the phone with the same service centre and again got it serviced. Then again on 25/05/2019 the complainant’s phone had shown the same defect and approached the same service centre and the 2nd opposite party directed the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.3,361/82 as service charge. Since the warranty is active upto 04/06/2019, the complainant has not agreed to pay the amount and hence the 2nd opposite party has returned it without doing service. Aggrieved by this the complainant approached this Commission praying for issuing a direction to the opposite parties to replace the phone and to direct to pay compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant which is estimated to an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with other reliefs.
Notices were sent to the opposite parties. Only the 1st opposite party appeared and filed their version.
The complainant have produced Exbt. A1 to A6 series to support his arguments and no oral evidence on the side of the complainant and no oral or documentary evidence is produced by the opposite parties. Hence the matter is analyzed on the basis of the evidences adduced by the complainant.
The following points arise for consideration:
i. Whether the complainant has proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
ii. If so whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the opposite parties and the quantum of compensation entitled for the complainant?
iii. Reliefs and costs?
Issue No. I & II
We have examined the matter in detail. It is revealed from the evidences produced by the complainant that he has purchased a mobile phone from the 2nd opposite party on 04/06/2018 on payment of costs of Rs.12,499/- as is evident from Exbt. A1. As per Exbt. A2 it can be seen that there is a period of one year warranty for the above said phone. As per Exbt. A3 and A4 complainant had entrusted the mobile phone with the approved service centre on 19/11/2018 and 19/02/2019 respectively for services. Exbt. A 5 is a copy of the service record which reveals that the phone of the complainant was accepted by the 3rd opposite party and returned to the complainant without repair. The date of purchase of the phone as per Exbt. A5 is on 04/06/2018 and since there is one year warranty for the alleged phone it can be seen that the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party within the warranty period, ie. on 22/05/2019. The 3rd opposite party refused to carry out the services and demanded for Rs.3,361/82. The act of the 3rd opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Moreover 3rd opposite party returned the phone to the complainant stating that “RWR” (Returned without Repair)
In the meanwhile the parties submitted that the matter is almost settled out Commission and hence posted for settlement.
Further the complainant is absenting from appearance before the Commission since 09/07/2020. The complainant had not established his case by appearing before the Commission.
ORDER
1. In the above circumstances, the opposite parties shall cure the defects of the phone of the complainant into factory new condition, on production of the phone by the complainant before the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of this order
2. There is no order for compensation considering the nature of the complaint.
3. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant as cost of proceedings.
The above order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 13th day of October, 2022.
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence:
Exbt. A1: Bill issued by 2nd opposite party to the complainant
Exbt. A2: Copy of warranty card
Exbt. A3: Copy of Service Record
Exbt. A4: Copy of Service Record
Exbt. A5: Copy of lawyer notice
Exbt. A6: Copy of lawyer notice
Opposite parties’ evidence:
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 330/2019
Order Date: 13/10/2022
