IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 24th day of February, 2022.
Filed on 10.11.2021
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.267/2021
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Muhammed Haseeb.M 1. The Manager, Customer Care
S/o Muhammed Kunju Xiomi Technology India Pvt.Ltd.
Vadayattusseril Ground floor, AKR Infity, Sy.No.113,
Adivaram, Mannancherry P.O. Krishna Reddy Industrial Area,
Alappuzha 7th mile, Hosuroads, Bangalore-560068
(Party in person)
2. Sri.Gokul, Cluster Service Manager
MI C/o TVS Electronics Ltd. 39/4113,
Ground floor, SKY bright, Ravipuram
M.G Road, Kochi-682016
3. Sri.Ajil, Service Manager, MI
C/o Voice plus support services,
GNRA93, Alissery road, Near Sona
Traders, Alappuzha-688001
4. Sri.Saju S
Zonal Service Manager
C/o TVS electronics Ltd.
39/4113, ground floor, SKY bright,
Ravipuram, M.G Road, Kochi-682016
(All opposite parties are exparte)
ORDER
C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
Brief facts of the complainants case is as follows:-
The complainant had booked MI 5X TV order No.5211007296280604 for online class of his son on 07.10.2021 through MI online site from the 1st opposite party and received the TV through courier on 10.10.21. The serial number of the TV is 34845/C06100020382 its price is Rs.33,498/- as per their tax invoice number C027576005973972 dated 07.10.21. A service technician was deputed by the 1st opposite party for the installation of the TV who came to the complainants residence on 12.10.21 and opened the box on verification he informed that the TV has a manufacturing defect and need to be replaced, he took the photos and video of the TV and send to the 3rd opposite party. Even after expiry of so many days, they have not yet turned up to solve the matter. Complainant has contacted opposite party No.2 and 4 on November 3rd for replacement of defective TV but the issues are not yet solved.
The above facts reveal that the opposite parties are not keen and sincere attempt to do their duty by taking the responsibility in the matter to help an innocent customer who is in mental agony and distress in the matter. The deficiency in service of the defendants has created irreparable hardship and mental pain to complainant and his family. The online class of his child is there by affected adversely. Opposite parties are also liable for the deficiency in service as they failed to install the TV and convince the functioning of the TV to him. Their dereliction in this regard is to deficiency in service for which all the opposite parties are responsible. Hence the complainant approached the Commission for following reliefs sought against the opposite parties.
- Allow the complainant to get the defective TV replaced by the 1st opposite party or to refund the price of the defective TV to the complainant, of Rs.33,498/-. Opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for deficiency of service and litigation expenses.
2. Points for consideration are as follows:-
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs if any?
3. Complainant was appeared in person. He has filed affidavit along with 2 documents were marked as Ext.A1 and A2 series. Opposite parties remained exparte. We have heard the part of the complainant.
4. Point No.1
Ext.A1 and A2 series of documents revealed the transaction between the parties. Complainant has purchased the disputed MI TV through MI online site. According to him the same was received through courier on 10.10.2021 and the price of the TV is Rs.33498/-. Even though a technician was deputed by the 1st opposite party on 12.10.21 for the installation of the product, he could not fix the same and informed that the TV is suffering from manufacturing defect. There after several request has been made by the complainant to the opposite parties for the replacement of the defective TV. But the problem has not yet solved. According to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the MI company, the installation of TV has to be done by them. So he had booked the installation request through the company’s online site on 11.10.2021. The technician was deputed by the 1st opposite party but he could not wall mount the same since due to its inherent manufacturing defect. Ext.A2 communications revealed that several times the complainant requested for replacement of the disputed TV. As per the evidence it understood that the real problem with the TV is that it has not been provided with wall mount thread, so it could not be fixed. Even though the defect is minor, naturally the customer is expecting good experience from the new product that expectation has been disturbed due to the defect.
According to the complainant he purchased the said TV for attending online class of his son. But the acts of opposite parties has adversely affected the online class of his son. The deficiency in service by the opposite parties, created severe mental agony and hardships to the complainant and his family. The opposite parties are reluctant to appear before the Commission even after the receipt of the notice. Hence the evidence of the complainant remained unchallenged. In view of the above we are of the opinion that the parties have forthwith removed the defect of the disputed TV and installed the same. We have already found the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service on that count, they have to compensate the complainant. At the same time complainant is entitled to get cost of the proceedings from the 1st opposite party.
5. Accordingly, we allow the complaint in part and direct as follows:-
1. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to remove the defect of the disputed TV and install the same within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the 1st opposite party is liable to refund Rs.33,498/- (Thirty three thousand four hundred and ninety eight) being the price of the TV under dispute to the complainant.
2. The 1st opposite party is liable to pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) to the complainant towards compensation, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. The 1st opposite party is also liable to pay Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) as litigation costs to the complainant.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 24thday of February, 2022
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Copy of tax invoice
Ext.A2 series - Copy of messages (3 Nos)
Evidence of the opposite parties:- NIL
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
