Tripura

Dhalai

CC/1/2020

Sri Biswajit Bhattacharya. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi Technology India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Sudhangsu Das.

08 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

                            BEFORE

 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

          Kamalpur, District:- Dhalai, Tripura

 

                               Case No. 01/CC/KMP of 2020

 

 Sri. BISWAJIT BHATTACHARYA

 S/O Lt. Sukumar Chandra Bhattacharya,

 Village:- Bhattacharya Para, P.S.:-Kamalpur, P.O.:- Kamalpur,

 District:- Dhalai, Tripura 799285..........………Complainant.

                                  

                                   V/S

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,

8th Floor, Tower-1, Umiya Business Bay Marathahalli-Sarjapur, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore,

Karnataka, India Pin Code-560103.................Respondent.

                                    Present

                  SRI. SURYA DEO SINGH.......... President,

 

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kamalpur, District:- Dhalai, Tripura

 1.  SRI. HIRALAL DEBBARMA………Member

2.  SMT. DIPALI SINHA..........................Member

 

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kamalpur, District:- Dhalai, Tripura

                              LD. C O U N S E L S

For the Complainant       : Ld. Advocate Sudhangsu Das.

For the Opposite Party    : None Represented for Opposite Party.                                             

 

      Date of argument:  23.09.2022      

      Date of judgment:  08.11.2022

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

1.            A complaint filed by Sri. Biswajit Bhattacharjee S/O Lt. Sukumar Chandra Bhattacharjee, resident of Kamalpur Bhattacharjee para, PS:- Kamalpur, District:-Dhalai, Tripura against  Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, having office at 8th floor, Tower -1 Umiya  Business Bay Marathahalli-Sarajpur, Outer ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, Pin-560103 for compensation to the tune of Rs.11,232/-(Rupees Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Thirtee Two)  for not providing cash receipt by Authorised Service Centre of the company situated at Agartala, Tripura. The complainant has submitted documents in support of his claim. The O.P. has been absent after receiving the service. OP has been served with notice dated 05/02/2021 and it has been confirmed by tracking delivery report dated 12/02/2021 at 14:28:02 hours that item delivery confirmed.                                      

 

 2.    The brief facts of the Complainant case is that he had purchased a mobile handset of MI Company bearing model- Redmi 7 Comet blue(3+32) dated 21/08/2019 from WEB & ELECTRONIC, Halhali, Dist- Dhalai (Tripura) in the name of his son Akash Bhattacharjee and accordingly cash memo was issued in the name of his son Akash Bhattacharjee.

 

3.    It is further case of the complainant that on 18/09/2020 when the mobile handset was not functioning properly, he approached WEB & ELECTRONICS Halhali on 19/09/2020 wherein he was advised to go to MI Company Authorized Service Center situated at Melarmath, Agartala and accordingly the complainant on 22/09/2020 approached Authorized Service Center situated at Melarmath, Agartala. After inspection of the mobile handset, the Service provider asked him to pay Rs 2,550/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Fifty) to repair tower IC. Accordingly the complainant paid  Rs 2,550/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Fifty) but the said Authorized Service Center of the Company did not give him the cash memo citing reason that  they will not give any cash memo for tower IC damage.

 

4.     Lastly, it is contention of the complainant that he tried to lodge complaint with MI Company but failed. However on 26/09/2020 when he contacted over helpline no, the Company personnel told him to reply within 24 hours after inquiry but they did not reply in due course of time and hence the complainant after being not providing with cash memo approached this forum for compensation alongwith over relief.

 

5.                                Points for Determination

 

i) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer within the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

ii) Whether the Complaint is maintainable?

iii) Whether the Complainant entitled to compensation or relief or reliefs as prayed for ? If yes, to what extent ?

 

6.           Point  No-1  is taken up for discussion and decision

 

          Section 2(5)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 lays down that a complainant means a consumer.

          Further section 2(7) lays down that a consumer means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the service for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such service are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avail of such service for any commercial purpose.

            In the instant case, the complainant availed service of Authorized Service Center by paying consideration amount of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) so he is a consumer. 

       Hence, the point No-1 is decided accordingly in favour of complainant.

 

7.              Point No. 2 is taken up for discussion & decision.

 Section 34 Of Consumer Protection Act,2019 read as follows:-

 

          Jurisdiction of the District Commission-

       1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees.

2)  A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-                                                                

   a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are  more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

  b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given, or

      c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

d) the complainant resides or personally work for gain.

    Further Section 69 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Provides limitation period for filing Complaint. According to this Section complaint should be filed within 2 years of arising of cause of action.

   Further it is to be mentioned here that the complainant fails to bring on record the necessary party i.e Authorized Service Center, Melarmath, Agartala for proper adjudication of the case.

   Though not providing cash memo is amounting to unfair trade practice under section 2(47)(vii) of consumer protection Act, 2019.

  During course of evidence, the complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he reiterated what has been stated in the complaint petition.

   The complainant submitted cash memo of purchase of mobile handset issued by WEB & ELECTRONICS, Halhali amounting to Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred).The complainant also submitted a hand written bill of his expenses from approaching service center to this forum amounting to Rs. 11,232/-(Rupees Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Two).

  However, the complainant fails to include necessary party in the complaint.

    It is true that in ex-parte proceeding the complainant is require to prove the  case on preponderance of probability  footing but that does not mean that the suit or complaint shall proceed without necessary party.

  In the instant case the authorized service center is necessary party by whose unfair trade practice, cause of action arose in favour of the complainant.

   As per Order 1 rule IX of CPC, 1908.

   Misjoinder and non-joinder - No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the right and interests of the parties actually before it. 

    It is settled principle of law that if a person who is likely to be affected by the decree is not joined as a party in the suit or appeal, the suit or appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground alone.

   In the instant case though the cash memo has not been provided to complainant which amount to unfair trade practice under consumer protection Act, 2019 but the complainant fails to bring on record the said necessary party i.e Authorized Service Center situated at Melarmath, Agartala.

   In view of the above discussion the point No-2 is decided against the complainant.

 

8.             Point No. 3 is taken up for discussion & decision.

 

Where the point No-2 is decided against the complainant, the point No-3 is not required to be decided in view of the determination of point no. 2. 

 

9.    Hence, it is

                                        O-R-D-E-R-E-D

 

              That the complaint being devoid of merit due to lack of  necessary party in the instant complaint case is hereby dismissed.

 

10 .           The case is disposed of accordingly.

 

11.            Supply copy of Judgment free of cost to the parties.

 

12.            Make necessary entry in the relevant register.

 

 

 

             (DIPALI SINHA)         (H.L. DEBBARMA)              (S. DEO SINGH)

MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION DHALAI TRIPURA : KAMALPUR

MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION DHALAI TRIPURA : KAMALPUR

PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION DHALAI TRIPURA : KAMALPUR