company-name-logo

Mi

Latest Judgments

Total 134 Consumer Court Cases Against Mi.

Punjab

Xiaomi Mi India V/S Vikas Goyal

Xiaomi   Mi  

Court Name: Sangrur

Appelant Advocate Sh. Tarun Goyal

Respondant Advocate

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRURJUDICIAL COURT COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, SANGRUR (148001)PUNJABComplaint Case No. CC/173/20171. Vikas GoyalVikas Goyal S/o NAnu Ram R/o Ward no. 1, Grid colony, Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur...........Complainant(s)Versus1. Xia...

Case Number: 173

|

Date of Filing: 02-05-2017

|

Date of Upload: 19-09-2017

Chandigarh

Mi India V/S Vikas Kundu

Mi  

Court Name: DF-II

Appelant Advocate In Person

Respondant Advocate

Dated :28/04/2017ORDER Sh. Vikas Kundu, counsel for the complainant has appended a note on the first page of the complaint that he withdraws this complaint with liberty to file fresh. In view of the above, this complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the complainant would ...

Case Number: 370

|

Date of Filing: 26-04-2017

|

Date of Upload: 01-05-2017

Punjab

MI Exclusive Service Centre V/S Jodha Ram

Mi  

Court Name: Amritsar

Appelant Advocate Neeraj Brahmi

Respondant Advocate

District Consumer Disputes Redressal ForumSCO 100, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit AvenueAmritsarPunjabExecution Application No. EA/17/14InComplaint Case No. CC/16/3071. Jodha RamDistrict Courts, AmritsarAmritsarPunjab...........Appellant(s)Versus1. MI Exclusive Service CentreB...

Case Number: 17

|

Date of Filing: 20-01-2017

|

Date of Upload: 28-04-2017

Telangana

1.Maytas Properties Limited, Regd. Office at Maytas Properties Limited, Hill Country, Bachupally, Mi V/S Mr. Rajeswar V. Surabhi, S/o. Mr. S. Thirupathi Rao, Aged about 39 Years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. 42890, Conquest Circle, Ashburn VA, 20148, USA.

Mi   Properties  

Court Name: StateCommission

Appelant Advocate M/s.Prabhakar Sripada

Respondant Advocate Mr.K.Visweswar Reddy-OP1

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMTelanganaComplaint Case No. CC/244/20131. Mr. Rajeswar V. Surabhi, S/o. Mr. S. Thirupathi Rao, Aged about 39 Years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. 42890, Conquest Circle, Ashburn VA, 20148, USA.2. Rep. by her GPA hoder Mr. B. Purshotahm Rao, S/...

Case Number: 244

|

Date of Filing: 18-11-2013

|

Date of Upload: 28-02-2017

Telangana

1.Maytas Properties Limited, Regd. Office at Maytas Properties Limited, Hill Country, Bachupally, Mi V/S 1. Mrs K. Mrudula, W/o. B. Uttam Kumar Aged about 32 Years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. 89-A, Ferry Street, Floor-II, Jersey City, New Jesrsey-07307, U.S.A.

Mi   Properties  

Court Name: StateCommission

Appelant Advocate M/s. Prabhakar Sripada

Respondant Advocate Mr.K.Visweswar Reddy- OP1

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMTelanganaComplaint Case No. CC/243/20131. 1. Mrs K. Mrudula, W/o. B. Uttam Kumar Aged about 32 Years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. 89-A, Ferry Street, Floor-II, Jersey City, New Jesrsey-07307, U.S.A.2. 2. Mr. B. Uttam Kumar, S/o. Mr. B. Pursh...

Case Number: 243

|

Date of Filing: 18-11-2013

|

Date of Upload: 28-02-2017

Punjab

Xiaomi Mi India V/S Sahil Bansal

Xiaomi   Mi  

Court Name: Sangrur

Appelant Advocate Shri Ritesh Jindal

Respondant Advocate

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR Complaint no. 622 Instituted on: 20.10.2016 Decided on: 14.12.2016Sahil Bansal son of Shri Naseeb Chand resident of Pappu Di Chakki Ajit Nagar...

Case Number: 622

|

Date of Filing: 20-10-2016

|

Date of Upload: 26-12-2016

Punjab

Xiaomi Mi India V/S Sahil Bansal

Xiaomi   Mi  

Court Name: Sangrur

Appelant Advocate Shri Ritesh Kuumar Jindal

Respondant Advocate

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRURJUDICIAL COURT COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, SANGRUR (148001)PUNJABComplaint Case No. CC/527/20161. Sahil BansalSahil Bansal Son of Sh. Naseeb Chand, resisdent of Pappu Di Chakki Ajit Nagar, Barnala Fatak, Tehsil and District Sangrur.........

Case Number: 527

|

Date of Filing: 01-09-2016

|

Date of Upload: 26-12-2016

Telangana

1.Maytas Properties Limited, Regd. Office at Maytas Properties Limited, Hill Country, Bachupally, Mi V/S 1. Mr. Arumilli Anand, S/o. Arumilli Krishnudu, Aged about 37 Years, Occ: QA Manager,

Mi   Properties  

Court Name: StateCommission

Appelant Advocate M/s. Prabhakar Sripada

Respondant Advocate Mr.K.Visweswar Reddy Op1 to Op3

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMTelanganaExecution Application No. EA/65/2013In1. 1. Mr. Arumilli Anand, S/o. Arumilli Krishnudu, Aged about 37 Years, Occ: QA Manager,R/o. Flat No.13, Surya Complex, Durganagar Colony, Punjagutta, Hyderabad.2. 2. Smt. S. Pragathi, W/o. Arum...

Case Number: 65

|

Date of Filing: 04-11-2013

|

Date of Upload: 10-01-2017

Telangana

1.Maytas Properties Limited, Regd. Office at Maytas Properties Limited, Hill Country, Bachupally, Mi V/S 1. Kavitha Thonangi

Mi   Properties  

Court Name: StateCommission

Appelant Advocate M/s. Prabhakar Sripada

Respondant Advocate M/s. Lotus law Associates

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMTelanganaExecution Application No. EA/68/2013In1. 1. Kavitha Thonangi 2-29-103, Plot 41 P and T Colony, Karkhana Secunderabad-500 009.Andhra Pradesh............Appellant(s)Versus1. 1.Maytas Properties Limited, Regd. Office at Maytas Propert...

Case Number: 68

|

Date of Filing: 04-11-2013

|

Date of Upload: 09-12-2016

Telangana

1.Maytas Properties Limited, Regd. Office at Maytas Properties Limited, Hill Country, Bachupally, Mi V/S 1. Mr. K. Madhu, S/o. Srinivasulu, Aged about 39 Years, Occ: IT Engineer,

Mi   Properties  

Court Name: StateCommission

Appelant Advocate M/s. Prabhakar Sripada

Respondant Advocate Mr.K.Visweswar Reddy Op1 to Op3

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMTelanganaExecution Application No. EA/66/2013In1. 1. Mr. K. Madhu, S/o. Srinivasulu, Aged about 39 Years, Occ: IT Engineer,R/o. B1-45, Huda Colony, Chandanagar, Hyderabad-500 050.2. 2. Smt. K. Radhika W/o. Madhu K. Aged about 35 Years, Occ: ...

Case Number: 66

|

Date of Filing: 04-11-2013

|

Date of Upload: 09-12-2016

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Common FAQ

Question : Am I eligible to file case against Mi in Consumer Forum?

Answer : If you have purchased a product or avails any service, either for your personal use or to earn your livelihood by means of self-employment.

Question : When I can fill a complaint against Mi ?

Answer : A complaint may be made against Mi under the following circumstances:
1 : Loss or damage is caused to the consumer due to unfair or restrictive trade practice.
2 : the article purchased by you is defective.
3 : the services availed of by you suffer from any deficiency.
4 : charged more then MRP
5 : Goods or services, which will be hazardous to life and safety, when used, are being offered for sale to the public.

Question : Is there any exemption from payment of Court Fee?

Answer : The complainants who are Below the Poverty Line shall be entitled for the exemption of payment of fee for complaints upto rupees one lakh on production of an attested copy of the Antyodaya Anna Yojana card.

Question : What are the Reliefs available to Consumers?

Answer : The reliefs available are :
1 : Removal of defects from the goods
2 : Replacement of the goods
3 : Refund of the price paid.
4 : Removal of defects or deficiencies in the services
5 : Award of compensation for the loss or injury suffered;
6 : Discontinue and not to repeat unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice;
7 : To withdraw hazardous goods from being offered for sale;
8 : To cease manufacture of hazardous goods and desist from offering services which are hazardous in nature;
9 : If the loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently, to pay such sum (not less than 5% of the value of such defective goods or services provided) which shall be determined by the forum;
10 : To issue corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of misleading advertisement;
11 : To provide adequate costs to parties.