Delhi

North East

CC/117/2022

Alok Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S One Plus Technology Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 117/22

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Alok Jain S/o Sh. Anil Kumar Jain R/o C-15/157, Pandav Street No. 2, Arjun Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.             2.       3.	MSAB M/s OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. Through its Managing Director Having its registered office at:- Hira Building, Municipal No. New Ward No.76, Brigade Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore, Karnataka 560001   M/s Wizard Digitek Computers Pvt. Ltd. R/o C-6/232, Ground Floor, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053   OnePlus Exclusive Service Centre, D Block, 10, Connaught Place, New Delhi, Delhi 110001	Opposite Party No.1         Opposite Party No.2           Opposite Party No.3

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:  JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:    DATE OF ORDER:

18.05.22 27.01.23 10.04.23

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1.  The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone of one plus Nord 2, 5G 256 GB bearing IMEI no. 863410058062214 amounting to Rs. 34,999/- through debit card on 14.10.21. The Complainant stated that from the date of purchase of mobile in question he is facing various problems in mobile since 14.11.21. On 20.01.22 Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 to replace or repair the mobile in question but Opposite Party No.2 refused to entertain the request and advised to visit service centre or to contact customer care executive. The Complainant stated that he contacted service centre of Opposite Party No.1 and the executive advised him to install Kaspersky  antivirus and also directed to scan the handset but after following the instructions the issues in mobile were not resolved. The Complainant again contacted customer care executive of Opposite Party and he advised to format the handset and Complainant told him that the handset has 50 to 80 GB data regarding his personal and professional work and customer care executive registered a complaint vide complaint no. 2202514005900. The Complainant  also filed complaint vide National Consumer Helpline vide complaint no. 3287150 dated 14.02.22 and the said complaint is still pending and thereafter Complainant received a call from one plus executive and requested Complainant  to visit service centre of Opposite Party where the issues will be resolved without harming the data. The Complainant stated that he was contacted by service executives of Opposite Party No.1 and asked him to deposit the defective mobile at service centre and the defective mobile in question was retained by service centre for 15 days. The Complainant enquired at service centre of Opposite Party  but they refused to entertain the request of Complainant mentioning the reason of timing of service centre. Thereafter Complainant met with engineer at service centre and in order to rectify the phone he advised him to transfer the data in other mobile and the engineer also gave frivolous reasons for the heating issue of mobile phone. The Complainant stated that he had sent a legal notice to Opposite Parties dated 10.03.22 through registered post. However no reply was received by Complainant. The Complainant has also sent various emails to Opposite Parties on various dates for refund of his handset. The Complainant  also sent email to CEO of Opposite Party company dated 19.04.22 and other representatives but they did not entertain the request of Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for the cost of mobile phone i.e. Rs. 34,999/- along with interest @ 18 % p.a. and for Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental harassment with interest @ 18 % p.a. till date. He has also prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 18.08.22.

Ex-Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by his affidavit and documents filed by him. The Opposite Parties did not appear and did not file any written statement. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be believed.
5. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 34,999/- jointly and severally to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- jointly and severally to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation cost with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
6. Order announced on 10.04.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain)        Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President