IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 26th day of October, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 157/2021 (Filed on 24-08-2021)
Petitioner : Rijo Jacob,
Pulicakathoppil House,
Keezhukunnu, Kottayam
Pin – 686002
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) M S Services,
Moosariparambil Building,
1st Floor, Erayilkadavu road,
Near Manorama, Kottayam
Pin – 686001.
(2) Xiaomi Technology India
Private Limited, Ground Floor,
AKR Infinity, Kudlu gate,
Krishna Reddy Industrial Area,
Bengaluru, Karnataka.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The case is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant had purchased a Redmi note 9 pro Max Indian Version 64 gb+128gb mobile phone on 28-8-2020. The second opposite party is the manufacturer of the said phone. According to the complainant the phone showed defects and he had to visit the service centre regularly. Though he had entrusted the said phone to the first opposite party to cure the defects, but the defects of the phone was not rectified. The phone is under warranty period and the defects of the phone is persisting at present. It is averred in the complaint that due to the unfair trade practise and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties much metal mental agony and hardship is caused to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
Though the notice served to the opposite parties, they did not care to appear before the Commission or to file version. Hence opposite parties were set exparty.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit A1, A2 and A2 (a).
Points to be considered
Whether the complainant succeeded to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and to entitled to any reliefs?.
The specific case of the complainant is that on 28-8-2020 he purchased a Redmi note 9 pro Max Indian Version 64 gb+128gb mobile phone which is manufactured by the second opposite party. It is proved by exhibit A1 that the complainant had purchased Redmi not 9 pro max phone from Mobile Park Changanassery for an amount of Rs.19,000/-. On perusal of exhibit A2 we can see that on 14-8-2021 the said phone was entrusted to the first opposite party with the complaint of system lagging. Exhibit A2(a) is the service record issued by the first opposite party on 30-9-2020. On a close scrutiny of Exhibit A2(a) we can see that the phone has the complaint of no incoming voice, no battery backup, some times display blurred screen , charging not proper and complaint of set law. It is further seen that the original IMEI(MEID) of the phone was 867799047064059 and the new IMEI(MEID) of the phone is as 867799043769297. It is further stated in exhibit A2((a) that parts used for the repair works main board assy and foam glue battery cover. Thus it is evident that within one month from the purchase of the phone got damaged it was repaired under warranty and due to replacement of the some integral parts of the phone the IMEI number of the phone changed. The phone was delivered to the complainant on 7-10-2020 after completing the repair works. Therefore it can be concluded that the phone has the inherent manufacturing defect and to rectify it the integral parts of the phone have been replaced by the first opposite party. It is proved by exhibit A2 that even after replacing some integral parts the defects of the phone was not cured.
There is no contrary evidence to before us to prove that the phone has no manufacturing defect at all. Thus we are of the opinion that the second opposite party had committed unfair trade practice by selling a phone which has manufacturing defect to the complainant.
In the light of above discussion we allow the complaint and pass the following order.
- We hereby direct the second opposite party to replace Redmi note 9 pro Max Indian Version 64 gb+128gb mobile phone with a new one having the same specification or to pay. Rs.19,000/- to the complainant.
- We hereby direct the second opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice committed by the second opposite party and to pay Rs.2500/- as cost of this litigation.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 26th day of October 2019
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Invoice dtd.28-08-2020 issued by Mobile park
A2 – Service order dtd.14-08-21
A2 (a) – Service record dtd.30-09-2020 issued by M.S. Service
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
