- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
VYSHNAV.K .M v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD
Factual and Procedural Background
The complainant, Vyshnav K.M., purchased a POCO M3 smartphone through Flipkart on 05/08/2021 for Rs. 12,999/-. The phone was intended for use by his brother for attending online classes during the Covid-19 pandemic. Approximately one year after purchase, the complainant installed a software update provided by the manufacturer, after which the smartphone failed to turn on. Upon taking the phone to the authorized service center (the third opposite party), he was informed that the main board needed replacement and that he would have to pay Rs. 7,904/- as the warranty period had expired. The complainant contended that the software update caused the phone to become non-functional and alleged deficient service and poor quality control by the manufacturer. Despite registering a grievance through the Integrated Grievance Redressal Mechanism (INGRAM) and contacting customer care, the complainant received an unsatisfactory response. The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking refund and compensation. The opposite parties were set ex-parte during the proceedings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
- What reliefs and costs are appropriate in the circumstances?
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court relied primarily on the unchallenged testimony of the complainant (PW1) and documentary evidence marked as Exts A1 to A5, which included the invoice, service records, email communications with customer care, grievance status in INGRAM, and public comments on the POCO phone issues. The opposite parties did not file any version or produce evidence to rebut the complainant’s claims. The court found the complainant’s assertion—that the phone became non-functional due to the software update provided by the manufacturer—proved. The deficiency of service by the opposite parties was established on the basis that the software update, issued by the company, caused the damage to the phone, reflecting poor quality control and inadequate testing. Consequently, the opposite parties were held jointly and severally liable either to repair the smartphone at no cost to the complainant or to refund the purchase price upon return of the device.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF in part.
The court directed the opposite parties to repair or service the POCO M3 smartphone and restore it to working condition within 30 days of receiving the order copy, or alternatively, to refund the complainant the full purchase price of Rs. 12,999/- after taking back the phone. The complainant is not liable to pay any charges for the repair. No order as to costs was made. This decision directly benefits the complainant by ensuring either repair or refund but does not establish any new legal precedent.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KARANTHUR PO,KOZHIKODE
Complaint Case No. CC/377/2022 ( Date of Filing : 31 Dec 2022 )
1. VYSHNAV.K .M
KALLADAMEETHAL,CHEMMALATHOOR,KUTTIKKATTOOR
P.O,KOZHIKODE-673008 ...........Complainant(s) Versus
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA
PVT LTD
BUILDING ORCHID
2. MANAGER,CUSTOMER CARE, XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY
INDIA PVT LTD
GROUND FLOOR,AKR INIFITY,SY.NO.113,KRISHNA REDDY
INDUSTRIAL AREA,7th MILE,HOSUR ROAD,BANGALORE-
560068,KARNATAKA
3. GLOBAL INFOCOM(AUTHORISED MI SERVICE CENTRE )
59/1834 2nd FLOOR,MA COMPLEX,ANNIE HALL ROAD,KOZHIKODE-673002 ............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. P.C .PAULACHEN , M.Com, LLB PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. V. BALAKRISHNAN ,M TECH ,MBA ,LLB, FIE Member HON'BLE MRS. PRIYA . S , BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) MEMBER
PRESENT:
Dated : 29 Apr 2024 Final Order / Judgement
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER Monday the 29th day of April 2024
CC.377/2022
Complainant
Vyshnav. K.M,
Kallada Meethal,
1
Chemmalathoor, Kuttikkattoor.P.O, Kozhikode - 673008 Opposite Parties Managing Director,1.
Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd, Building Orchid, Block E, Embassy Tech Village, Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru - 560103
Manager,2.
Customer Care, Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd, Ground Floor, AKR Infinity, Sy No. 113, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, 7th Mile, Hosur Road, Bangalore - 560068 Karnataka.
Global Infocom (Authorised MI Service Centre),3.
59/1834, 2nd Floor, MA Complex, Annie Hall Road, Kozhikode - 673002
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN - PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:2.
On 05/08/2021 the complainant purchased a POCO M3 smart phone through flipkart paying Rs. 12,999/-. It was purchased for the use his brother, who was studying in 11thstandard, to
2
attend online classes during Covid -19 pandemic. Just after one year of purchase, POCO provided a software update and the complainant installed it expecting a better software experience as claimed by the company. But after the software update installation, the smartphone did not turn on. The complainant took the phone to the third opposite party, which is the authorised service centre. They informed that it was a main board issue and it has to be replaced. It was also informed that as the product warranty had expired, he had to pay Rs. 7,904/- for the repair. It is completely unfair because it was the software update provided by the company that made the phone dead. Though he contacted the company's customer care, their response was not satisfactory.
3.
The phone is dead because of the software update provided by the company and the company is fully responsible for the problem. The root cause for the problem is the inefficient quality control mechanism during manufacturing and the poor testing of the software before pushing it to the users. Many POCO users are facing the same problem. The complainant registered a grievance in the INGRAM (Integrated Grievance Redressal Mechanism), but the response of the company was not satisfactory. Hence the complaint for refund of the price along with compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant.
4.
The opposite parties were set ex-parte.5. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
1) Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
6.
2) Reliefs and costs. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A5 were marked.7. Heard. 8.
Point No 1: The complainant has approached this Commission seeking refund of the price of the smartphone along with compensation. The grievance of the complainant is that the POCO M3 smart phone purchased by him is not turning on because of the installation of software update provided by the company.
9.
PW1, who is none other than the complainant, has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the invoice dated 07/08/2021, Ext A2 is the copy of the service record, Ext A3 is the copy of the e- mail communication with customer care, Ext A4 is the INGRAM grievance status and Ext A5 is the copy of the public comments on POCO phone issues.
10.
The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have not turned up to file version. They have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. There is no contra evidence to disprove the claim. The case of the complainant that the phone became dead because of the software update provided by the manufacturer stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A5 documents. Deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties stands proved. The opposite parties are liable to repair the smartphone of the complainant and make it in a sound working condition, or in the alternative, refund the price of the product to the complainant. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.
11.
Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as 12.
3
follows;
a) CC. 377/2022 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to repair / service POCO M3 (Power Black 120 GB) smart phone of the complainant and make it in a sound working condition within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, or in the alternative, refund the price of Rs. 12,999/ (Rupees Twelve thousand nine hundred and ninety nine) to the complainant, after taking back the smart phone. It is made clear that the complainant shall not be required to pay any charges for the said repair.
c) No order as to costs. Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 29thday of April, 2024. Date of Filing: 31/12/2022
Sd/- Sd/-
Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext.A1 - Copy of the invoice dated 07/08/2021. Ext.A2 - Copy of the service record. Ext.A3 - Copy of the e-mail communication with customer care. Ext.A4 - INGRAM grievance status.
Ext.A5 - Copy of the public comments on POCO phone issues.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - Febina. K, (Complainant)
4
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
MEMBER
True Copy, Sd/-
Assistant Registrar.
[HON'BLE MR. P.C .PAULACHEN , M.Com, LLB]
PRESIDENT
[HON'BLE MR. V. BALAKRISHNAN ,M TECH ,MBA ,LLB, FIE] Member
[HON'BLE MRS. PRIYA . S , BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM)]
MEMBER
5
Alert