IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 06th day of November, 2021
Filed on 29.09.2020
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh kumar.Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.236/2020
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.N.Sreenivasan, 1. Xiaomi, Technology India
Aikkarapadeettathil Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor
Muttom.P.O AKR Infinity Sy No.113
Harippad, Alappuzha-690511 Krishna Reddy Industrial Area
(Party in person) 7th mile, HO-47 Road, Bangalore
Karnataka-560068.
(Exparte)
2. The Sales Manager, D-Hub
Aiswaraya Building Nadakkavu, Mavelikkara
(Adv. P.Anilkumar)
3. Sri. Sijo Thomas
Sonic Systems
Pulimottil Trade Centre
Mullackal, Alappuzha
(Exparte)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLLY.P.R (MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Material averments briefly stated as follows:-
Complainant had purchased a mobile phone Redmi note 8, 4GB 64GB moon light while worth Rs.11,600/- from 2nd opposite party on 19/4/2020 by bill No.00000038. At the time of its purchase the salesman, Sri. Abhijith told that the said mobile phone was the best phone available and the performance also has best compared to other phones.
From the very beginning of the purchase of the said phone developed complaint and the complainant could not use the phone continuously and properly. When the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and complained about it for several times, they evaded from the onus, and finally directed to go to their Alappuzha Service centre sonic system, Pulimoottil trade centre. Accordingly the complainant registered complaints on different occasion ie, on 18/6/2020, 10/7/2020,6/8/2020 etc, but even after their repairs the fault of the phone remained unchanged. Since it was not redressed the grievance of the complainant by the opposite parties, he was totally dissatisfied with the functioning of the phone due to the said complaints. Hence this complaint for refund of the purchase price of the said phone along with compensation.
Notice issued from this commission served to the opposite parties 1 to 3. Opposite party No.2 only appeared through counsel, but not filed any version or conducted the case for disproving the complaint. Hence all the opposite parties were set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in tune with the complaint and produced 6 documents, marked as Ext.A1 to A6.
2. Points to be considered are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund the cost of the phone in question from the opposite parties?
3. Relief and cost?
3. Point No 1 and 2:-
Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A6 documents. Complainant’s case is that he had purchased Redmi Note 8 4GB, 64GB moon light white mobile phone for a sum of Rs.11,600/- from 2nd opposite party on 19/4/2020. 1st opposite party it is manufacturer and 3rd opposite party is the authorized service centre. The complainant alleged that from the beginning of its purchase the mobile developed complaints and eventhough the 3rd opposite party repaired the phone on several occasions the said defects were not rectified. Thus the product was not useful to the complainant.
On perusal of the documents marked, Ext.A3 and A4 are service orders which shows that the phone in question was entrusted with 3rd opposite party for its service noticing auto power off. Ext.A1 is the invoice of purchase of the said phone dated 19/4/2020. As per Ext.A5 the mobile phone covers a warranty for one year from 19/4/2020. Comparing the dates of service of the mobile phone in question in Ext.A3 and A4 with Ext.A5 the defects were happened within the period of warranty especially within a short span of time from its purchase.
The unchallenged averments in the complaint proved by the complainant in the proof affidavit coupled with Ext.A1 to A6. Hence we found there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thus the complainant is entitled to the relief in certain extent.
4. Point No.3:-
In the result complaint allowed in part directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.11,600/-(Rupees Eleven thousand and six hundred only) to the complainant being the cost of the mobile phone in dispute by taking back the said phone. Opposite parties are also liable to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards compensation and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 06th day of November, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - GST Invoice dtd. 9/4/2020
Ext.A2 - GST Invoice dtd. 9/4/2020
Ext.A3 - Service Order dtd. 18/6/2020
Ext.A4 - Service Record dtd. 10/7/2020
Ext.A5 - Warranty notice & User guide
Ext.A6 - Copy of Aadhar Card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
