21 Nov 2023 11:30 AM GMT
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Sanjeev Kulkarni (President) and Sri Girish S. Patil (Member) held Xiaomi India’s M.I. Customer Head Office and Grievance Officer along with the dealer, Infinity Retail Limited liable for selling a defective T.V. to the Complainant. The Complainant’s grievances...
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Sanjeev Kulkarni (President) and Sri Girish S. Patil (Member) held Xiaomi India’s M.I. Customer Head Office and Grievance Officer along with the dealer, Infinity Retail Limited liable for selling a defective T.V. to the Complainant. The Complainant’s grievances remained unaddressed after several attempts and the manufacturer and the dealer failed to even respond to his legal notice, which constituted a deficiency in service.
Dr. Manish Bagi (“Complainant”) purchased an M.I. LED Television for Rs. 34,999/- from ‘Infinity Retail Limited Trading as Croma’ (“Dealer”) located in Tilakwadi, Belagavi. Subsequently, he faced operational issues with the television, which displayed errors on the screen. The Complainant initiated a complaint with the Dealer and the Dealer sent a technician to repair the television. The technician found a defect with the remote control and assured to check it. However, the technician failed to operate the television properly. The complainant then lodged a second complaint with the Dealer; however, no resolution was reached. In the 3rd instance, the complainant’s grievance was intimated to the M.I. Customer Head office and Grievance Officer of Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (“Manufacturer”) for approval, but neither has responded or complied with the demand. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi, Karnataka (“District Commission”).
The Dealer contended that it was not responsible for manufacturing defects, as it only sold the product, and any issues should be addressed by the Manufacturer. It further argued that it had always strived to fulfil customer requirements. Meanwhile, the Manufacturer argued that they had informed the Complainant about the problem with the motherboard and were ready to repair the television, but the Complainant himself insisted on a full replacement, which was not covered under the warranty.
Observations by the Commission:
Rejecting the Dealer’s argument that it was not responsible for manufacturing defects and that the Complainant’s demands for a full replacement were not covered under the warranty, the District Commission held that the Dealer was a party involved in the transaction and had a responsibility to ensure that the product sold was free from defects. Further, the District Commission noted ignorance of legal notice, sent by the Complainant to the Dealer and the Manufacturer, indicated a lack of willingness on their part to resolve the matter through amicable means.
Consequently, the District Commission directed the Dealer and the Manufacturer to replace the television within 45 days, or in case of failure to do so, to refund the invoice price with interest. Additionally, the District Commission directed them to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant for the deficiency in service and Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation cost incurred by the complainant.
Case Title: Manish Bagi vs The Infinity Retail Limited Tading as Croma and others.
Case No.: CC/641/2022
Advocate for the Complainant: SL Patil
Advocate for the Respondent: OP1 exparte; OP2 in person; OP3 and OP4 by YN Kotian
Click Here To Read/Download The Order