DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 14th day of February 2023
Filed on: 22.12.2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C No.430/2020
COMPLAINANT
Rohit.K.S., Kollamolel House, Kadackanadu P.O., Kolencherry P.O., Pin-682 311.
(By Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha, Pin-686 661)
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
M/s Xiaomy Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Orchid (Block E), Ground Floor to 4 Floor, Embassy Tech Village, Marathhalli-Sarjapur Outer ring road, Devarabisanahally, Bengalaru-560103,Represented by its Managing Director
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant had placed an order with the Mi Store of the opposite party for a Xaomi MI LED Smart TV on 08.11.2020. It was delivered on 11.11.2020 by a delivery agent of the opposite party. The complainant paid Rs. 26000/-towards the price of the T V. One year warranty was provided for the LED TV. While so, when the complainant removed the packing of the TV for installation, he was shocked to notice scratches all over the screen. Immediately he lodged an e-mail complaint with the opposite party and forwarded the pictures of the TV. But instead of replacing the TV the opposite party gave a reply stating that if the MI LED TV box was opened by the customer and found any damage or missing product then the replacement and missing product claim becomes null and void. The reason given for rejecting the replacement claim is not sustainable due to the fact that no such condition is written in the installation guide and warranty card supplied along with the products. It is also pertinent to note that no such condition is seen on their web site also. The supply of a defective TV and the reluctance on the part of the opposite party to replace the defective TV by raising flimsy reasons amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant suffered severe pain, mental agony, and hardships due to the loss of enjoyment of the TV facility.
The complainants had approached the Commission seeking an order directing the opposite party to a refund of the price of the TV Rs. 26,000/- together with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of delivery till realization, Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, financial loss, and hardships suffered by him due to the loss of the TV facility and the cost of the proceedings.
2. Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice but did not appear before the Commission and not filed a version. Consequently, the opposite party is set ex-parte.
3) Evidence
The complainant had filed a Proof affidavit and 5 documents that were marked as Exhibits A-1- to A-5.
Exhibit A-1. Copy of the tax invoice.
Exhibit A-2. Copy of the MI LED Smart TV warranty policy.
Exhibit A-3. TV Installation guide.
Exhibit A-4. Copy of the complaint given to the opposite party.
Exhibit A-5. Copy of the reply received from the opposite party.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced a copy of the tax invoice (Exhibit A-1). Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
In the present case in hand, the complainant had placed an order with the Mi Store of the opposite party for a Xiaomi MI LED Smart TV on 08.11.2020. It was delivered on 11.11.2020 by a delivery agent of the opposite party. The complainant paid Rs. 26000/-towards the price of the T V. One year warranty was provided for the LED TV. While so, when the complainant removed the packing of the TV for installation, he was shocked to notice scratches all over the screen. Immediately he lodged an e-mail complaint with the opposite party and forwarded the pictures of the TV. But instead of replacing the TV the opposite party gave a reply stating that if the MI LED TV box was opened by the customer and found any damage or missing product then the replacement and missing product claim becomes null and void.
The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complaint is regarding the reluctance on the part of the opposite party to replace the LED smart TV found defective while opening the box. The sole excuse given by the opposite party for that the company is not liable for any defect that occurred during the opening of the box by the customer himself. But the above reason has not been written in the instruction guide or website. (Exhibit A-2, A- 3).
The complainant lodged an e-mail complaint with the opposite party and forwarded the pictures of the TV dated 11-11-2020 and demanding an option to return the product. (Exhibit A-4). The opposite party gave a reply stating that if the MI LED TV box was opened by the customer and found any damage or missing product then the replacement and missing product claim becomes null and void. (Exhibit A-5).
We have also noticed that Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice but did not appear before the Commission and not filed a version. Consequently, the opposite party is set ex-parte. The complainant has filed the Proof Affidavit and 5 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-5. All in support of his case.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The Opposite Party has inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the Opposite Party in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
(i) The Opposite Party shall refund Rs. 26000/- (Price of the TV) to the complainant being the price of the T.V purchased by the complainant from the opposite party.
(ii) The Opposite Party shall pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant.
(iii) The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide above (i), (ii) shall attract interest @5.5% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission dated this 14th day of February 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence
Exhibit A-1. Copy of the tax invoice.
Exhibit A-2. Copy of the MI LED Smart TV warranty policy.
Exhibit A-3. TV Installation guide.
Exhibit A-4. Copy of the complaint given to the opposite party.
Exhibit A-5. Copy of the reply received from the opposite party.
