For Complainant         :           Self

For OP No.1                 :           Self

For OP No.2                 :           None.

                                                                                                             -x-

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased an Mi Home Security 360 degree Camera from Xioami (Mi) on line store on 10.10.2018 and being satisfied with the performance of that Camera, he purchased another Camera of same brand from the same OPs on 28.10.2018 vide Order No.518102936601080401 which was delivered to the complainant on 02.11.2018 at Jeypore through Delhivery Courier.  It is submitted that after purchase of 2^nd camera it was connected with Jio-Fi (Hot Spot) by the complainant to make it functional as done earlier in case of 1^st camera but it worked only for 30 minutes and thereafter indicated a off line mode.  On complaint the Ops stated that the Camera cannot be connected with Jio-Fi and hence the complainant tried to connect the camera with BSNL Router but was not successful.  It is further submitted that the complainant requested the Ops for replacement of the camera.  After due acceptance of the complaint, they advised the complainant to send relevant documents with photo copy of the camera to which the complainant sent on 05.11.2018 but on 08.11.2018 the Ops intimated the complainant that the return pick up request of the complainant has been cancelled.  On further contact, the Ops stated that the replacement of the camera is not possible and they advised the complainant to go to the service centre of the product.  The complainant submitted that he has not cancelled the replacement request but the Ops with some plea or other are not willing to replace the defective camera with a new one.  Thus alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to replace the Camera with a new one and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter affidavit denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the sale of the alleged camera to the complainant with due consideration.  It is contended that the complainant has not submitted any evidence such as a job sheet in connection with any alleged visit to the authorised service centre of the Company and the complainant has not provided any evidence regarding manufacturing defects in the product.  The OP.1 further contended that non submission of job sheet of authorised service centre of the Company lacks the availability of relevant document to establish the case of the complainant.  Thus denying any defect in goods or any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP.1 in spite of valid notice has neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner.  The OP.1 only filed affidavit.  Heard from the complainant at length in absence of the Ops and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, purchase of Mi Home Security 360 degree camera by the complainant from Xioami (Mi) online store vide order No. 518102936601080401 and Invoice No.3032589 dt.28.10.2018 for Rs.2699/- is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that he had purchased this camera after being satisfied with the performance of the 1^st camera of same brand purchased by him on 10.10.2018 from the same Ops.  According to the complainant, the 1^st camera connected with Jio-Fi was working perfectly and hence the complainant connected Jio-Fi to the 2^nd camera but the said camera functioned only for 30 minutes.  On contact to the customer care of the Company, it stated that the camera cannot be connected with Jio-Fi and hence the complainant connected the camera with BSNL Router but the camera did not work. Hence the complainant requested the Ops to replace the defective camera with a new one but the Ops with some plea or other finally refused to replace it.

5.                     The Ops denying the allegations of the complainant stated that the complainant has not approached any Authorised Service Centre (ASC) of the Company and hence manufacturing defect in the product could not be established.

6.                     It is a fact that soon after non functioning of camera, the complainant had intimated the fact to the customer care of the Company who advised the complainant to follow their procedures but in spite of following their procedures, the camera did not run.  The complainant has also talked with the establishments of the Ops several times and they have assured to replace the camera.  As per their request, the complainant has also sent photo copies of certain documents in connection with defective camera.  Being satisfied, the Ops also assured to replace the camera as revealed from the record but after several attempts and correspondences the Ops finally denied keeping their promise.

7.                     In this case, the complainant has made number of correspondences with the Ops as revealed from the record and the Ops have also replied to the queries of the complainant but nowhere it is found that the Ops have ever advised the complainant to approach their service centre with the defective camera.  The Ops somewhere agreed to replace the product but later on changed their mind and after filing of this case, the Ops are grumbling about non approach of the complainant to their service centre.  This behaviour of the Ops in our opinion is quite unfair.  It is seen that the camera did not function on the day one of its use and in this case, the Ops are bound to replace the camera with a new one but by not replacing the defective camera with a new one; the Ops in our concluded opinion have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  In fine, the complainant is entitled to get back the cost of the camera at Rs.2699/- with interest in lieu of defective one.  Further for such inaction of the Ops the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has filed this case incurring some expenditure.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complainant petition is allowed and the OP.1 being liable is directed to refund Rs.2699/- towards cost of the camera with interest @ 12% p.a. from 02.11.2018 in lieu of defective one and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

(to dict.)