By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
The complaint in short is as follows:-
1. On 18/03/2022 complainant had purchased OPPO RENO 7 Pro 12/256GB Mobile
BLUE phone worth Rs. 39,999/- from the shop of opposite party No.2 . Complainant stated that opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of the mobile phone. Immediately after purchasing the mobile phone, when the product was switched ‘ON’, complainant noticed that the display was defective. Then he entrusted the mobile phone to opposite parties and they rectified the defect which seen on the very first day of its purchase.
2. 23/08/2023 when complainant taken the phone to call his friend and he realised that the display was defective and the display had completely gone. On the very next day he reported the issue to opposite party No.2 and they directed the complainant to approach opposite party No.1 and entrusted the mobile phone to them .As per their direction complainant approached opposite party No.1 on 25/08/2023 and opposite party No.1 demanded Rs. 12,500/- to rectify the defect of the display. Complainant stated that the phone worth Rs. 40,000/- purchased by him became defective and the display completely gone within one year and five months of its purchase. The complainant again contented that the defect of the mobile phone is manufacturing defect. Due to the defective display, complainant cannot contact others for his work related purposes and he had stored his work related information in the phone. Hence he had sustained heavy damage and loss. There is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties and the phone had manufacturing defect . Hence this complaint.
3. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and Rs. 25,000/-as cost of the proceedings.
4. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and
Notice to opposite party No.1 returned stating “closed down”. Hence opposite party No.1 set exparte. Notice to opposite party No.2 served on 18/09/2023 and they appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version.
5. In their version, opposite party No.2 denied all the allegations levelled by complainant against them except those which are admitted there under. They admitted that complainant purchased the above mentioned mobile phone on 18/03/2022 which is manufactured by OPPO Mobiles India Private Limited and the said product was having a manufacturer warranty of one year. The first opposite party is OPPO exclusive centre who is also in charge of the after sales service of the product of the above said manufacturer. What is seen alleged in the complaint is manufacturing defect and failure to rectify alleged manufacturing defect of the product by first opposite party which is the authorised service centre of the manufacturer, after the expiry of the warranty. They again stated that the manufacturer is absolutely necessary party for a proper and effective adjudication of the matter.
6. Opposite party No.2 stated that they are only the retailer of Home appliances and Electronics of different brands and not the authorised service centre of the manufacturer and they have no technical staff and no connection in the after sales service of the product of the above said manufacturer. There is no principal agent relationship between them and manufacturer or the first opposite party service centre. Moreover there is no specific allegation or relief claimed against opposite party No.2.
7. As a part of the goodwill and customer retention policy , opposite party No.2 runs a customer care centre which helps the customer to register complaints regarding the products with the manufacturer and its service centre. After receiving complaint from the customer, they inform the manufacturers and authorised service centres. Complainant has not taken any steps to establish the alleged manufacturing defect through an expert having qualification in the field.
8. They admitted that on 18/03/2022 complainant came to their showroom and after being fully satisfied with the product and its price, he purchased the above mentioned mobile phone worth Rs. 37,399/- having warranty of 1 year. They also admitted that on 22/03/2022, four days after the purchase, complainant approached them with a complaint that the screen was blurred while taking photos. The staff of opposite party No.2 advised him to take the product to the first opposite party service centre, but they could not detect any malfunction with the product and at the request of the complainant they updated the software and returned to the complainant. Thereafter on 24/08/2023 after using the phone for almost 1 ½ years and after the expiry of the manufacturer warranty, the phone was bought to the second opposite party with the complaint that the same had some issues with the display. The staff of second opposite party again advised to take the product to the first opposite party service centre. The second opposite party does not have technical staff and the staff of them had never inspected the product and has no role in the after sale service of the product. They have no direct knowledge regarding the alleged complaint or the repair done by first opposite party service centre of the manufacturer. Moreover from the documents it is clear that the manufacturer warranty of the product expired , that the product had some display issues, that the display need to be replaced and the customer is not willing to replace it as the spare part price is high.
9. Complainant has no cause of action against them and there is no loss hardship and mental agony has been caused to complainant on account of opposite party No.2. Hence complainant may be dismissed.
10. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the copy customer service record given by opposite party No.1 to complainant on 24/08/2023. Ext.A2 is the copy of tax invoice given by opposite party No.2 to complainant on 18/03/2022. Ext.A3 is the copy of warranty terms and conditions. Thereafter opposite party N o.2 also filed affidavit and documents which are marked as Ext. B1 and B2. Ext. B1 is the copy of authorisation letter. Ext. B2 is the copy of customer service record dated 22/03/2022.
11. Heard complainant and opposite party No.2. Perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- If so, reliefs and cost?
12. Point No.1 and 2:-
Case of the complainant is that mobile phone purchased by him had defects in
display within 1 ½ years of its purchase and the mobile phone had manufacturing
defects. In this matter opposite party No.1 the service centre became set exparte and opposite party No.2 the seller of the mobile phone stated that they have no role in the manufacturing of the product .When complainant approached them for showing display problem, they helped the complainant to register the complaint.
13. From Ext. A1 it is seen that the mobile phone purchased by complainant had the defects and the reported defect is display issue and the remark in that document is green display, unable to take software version. In the repair remark, opposite party No.1 stated that “need to be replace touch with LCD, customer not willing to replace hence give up” and “the give up reason is spare part price is high”. In that document the warranty details shown that "out of warranty". From Ext.A2 it is seen that the price of the mobile phone is Rs. 37,399/-. Ext. A3 shows that the warranty given by Eham Digital, the seller. In Ext.B2 , it is seen that during the warranty period and within four days of the purchase of the mobile phone complainant contacted opposite party No.1 for some defects and the defect reported was camera problem and the remark was “low clarity while taking photos in rear camera”. The repair remark in that document was “Issue not reproduced at SC. As per customer request software upgraded” and the declaration was "Received the hand set in working condition and up to my satisfaction".
14. While perusing the affidavit and documents of both parties it is seen that there was some problems to the mobile phone purchased by complainant within four days of its purchase and he approached opposite parties for repair and he received the hand set in working condition. Thereafter complainant approached the opposite parties after 1 ½ years of the purchase of the mobile phone with defects in display . Opposite party No.1 reported the defect green display, unable to takes software version and repair remarks also noted in that document. Opposite party No.2 admitted that complainant approached them twice due to the defect of his mobile phone and once opposite party No.1 repaired the same , but thereafter complainant was not ready to give the repair cost to opposite party No.1. They also stated that the phone is out of warranty now.
15. While going through in detail, it is seen that manufacturer of the mobile phone is not a party in the above complaint. Complainant alleged that the defect of his mobile phone is a manufacturing defect. In their version and affidavit, opposite party No.2 stated that it is highly necessary to implead the manufacturer of the mobile phone as a party, hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Commission posted the case so many times for taking steps but complainant did not take any steps to implead the manufacturer as a party. Even if the defect reported after the warranty period but the manufacturer can rectify the defect by consulting with complainant. Complainant in his complaint and affidavit stated that the phone had manufacturing defect, but no steps taken by him to appoint an expert for a technical report and also find out the present condition of the mobile phone. No steps was taken by complainant to prove his case even posted for taking steps so many times. Commission is not aware about the present condition of the mobile phone, whether complainant is using it or not. Opposite party No.2 is only the seller of the mobile phone and they had taken every positive steps to help the complainant. Even though opposite party No.1 is set exparte, complainant failed to prove deficiency in service from their side. They are only the service centre of the mobile phone. Complainant alleged the manufacturing defect of the product and it is highly necessary to implead manufacturer as a party. The seller of the product opposite party No.2, the service centre of the product opposite party No.1 are not liable for the manufacturing defect of the product. Complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. Hence complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 30th day of October, 2024.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A3
Ext.A1 : Copy customer service record given by opposite party No.1 to complainant on
24/08/2023.
Ext.A2 : Copy of tax invoice given by opposite party No.2 to complainant on
18/03/2022.
Ext.A3: Copy of warranty terms and conditions.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 & B2
Ext. B1: Copy of authorisation letter.
Ext. B2: Copy of customer service record dated 22/03/2022.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
