Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/182/2020

Ashok Kanwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xiaomi Technology - Opp.Party(s)

06 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/182/2020
Date of Institution	:	24/06/2020
Date of Decision	:	04/12/2023

 

Sh.Ashok Kanwal, R/o #1080, Phase-2, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh, Opposite Vishwkarma Mandir, Chandigarh 160002.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Reg. Office:- Orchid (Block E), Ground Floor to 4^th Floor, Embassy Tech Village, Marathahalli-Sarjapur outer Ring Road, Bangalore-560103.
2. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., through its Regional Manager/Authorized Signatory, Regional Office:-C/o DHL Supply Chain India Pvt. Ltd. Chawa Payal Road, Tehsil Payal, District:-Ludhiana Punjab 141416.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for Complainant alongwith complainant in person.
	:	Sh.Atul Goyal, Advocate for OP No.1.
	:	OP No.2 ex-parte.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased Mi LED TV dated 07.10.2019 from the OPs. At the time of purchase, it was informed that the LED TV set carries warranty of one year from the date of purchase. It is further stated that the cost of the 50° LED TV purchased by complainant was Rs.29,999/- however a coupon discount of Rs. 17,000/- was given into the complainant by the OP. The said coupon of Rs. 17,000/- was given to complainant in respect of Mi Mobile phone which was purchased by the complainant prior to purchase of LED TV and after coupon discount the opposite party had charged Rs.12,999/- for the LED TV complainant (Annexure C-1). On 25.01.2020 the volume of the LED TV suddenly got such low that even after full volume of the LED TV the volume was not hearable at a distance of 3-5 meter. The complainant immediately made a call to customer care Number of the opposite party and registered his complaint (Annexure C-2). Thereafter, on 29.01.2020 the OP send their executive to inspect the complainant TV. The Executive of OP after inspecting the TV informed to the complainant that the LED TV has some defect in its software due to which volume of the LED TV got such low that not hearable at distance of 3-5 meters even on full volume and assured to the complainant that as the LED TV is under warranty the OP will replace the LED TV of the complainant under warranty within 10 days. Moreover, the OP’s neither removed the defect nor replaced the TV till date. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the product was duly repaired in a complete and satisfactory manner as and when required by the complainant (Annexure C & D). It is further stated that the complainant has not produced any evidence admissible or otherwise to prove manufacturing defects in the product. Mere allegations and unsupported averments cannot be held against it and the complainant is required to prove manufacturing defects in the product. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.2 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.2 despite following proper procedure, therefore it was proceeded ex-parte on 18.09.2020.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     On perusal of complaint, it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have failed to repair the LED sound volume, inspite of repeated complaints. On perusal of the Annexure C & D annexed with the reply of OP’s which are service records in respect of TV in question, they do not carry the satisfactory remarks with respect to repairs or signature of the complainant and it cannot be safely assumed that the product was repaired satisfactorily.
8.     Moreover, since the problem was noticed with regards to the sound volume not hearable at a distance of 3 to 5 meters in the room, the OPs were duty bound to place on records any test or reports that the sound volume tests were carried out and decibels of sound volume recorded by audio-sound volume measuring equipment was measured. If the OP’s wanted to satisfy the complainant, they could have placed technical reports to that effect, which they have failed to do so. By not placing such technical reports on records, it can be presumed that the TV sound volume was not satisfactory and the basic purpose of purchase of TV & its utility stands defeated. In view of the above, the OPs were either required to replace the TV or refund its purchase price which was not done. Hence, the OPs are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant & have indulged in unfair trade practice and we are ordering for refund of the purchase price of TV, after deducting reasonable depreciation. Since, the problem was noticed after 4 months, hence reasonable depreciation of 10% can be deducted. 
9.     Significantly, OP No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OP No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the OP No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund an amount of ₹26,999 (₹29,999-10% of cost towards depreciation charges) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint onwards. The complainant shall, however, return the LED TV in question to the OPs.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
3. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

11.     This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

 

13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
04/12/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member