District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.627/2022.
Date of Institution: 23.11.2022.
Date of Order: 26.05.2023.
Sh. Sateesh Kumar S/o Shri Seetaram Singh r/o H.NO. 49, Village Sangrampur, Aligarh (U.P) At present village Bahadurpur, 91, Sub- Tehsil Dayalpur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, Haryana, Aadhar No. 8958 8630 4217.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. OPPO Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. A1, Ectotech-7, Grater Noida, EMC Industrial Area (U.P), through its Managing Director/Principal Officer.
2. M/s. Grass Roots Research & Creation India (P) Ltd., F-374-375, Sector -63, Noida (U.P) through its proprietor/Authorized Signatory/Principal Officer.
3. M/s. Jai Bharat Communication, G.T.Road, Red Light Chowk, Ballabgarh through its proprietor/Authorized Signatory/Principal Officer.
4. Peony Services Pvt. Ltd. Plot NO. 131A, NH-V, Opposite Bankey Bihari Mandir, NIT, Faridabad, through its Director/principal Officer.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. N.K.Tanwar , counsel for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte vide order dated 14.03.2023.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that on 20.03.2022 the complainant had approached the opposite party No.3 (retailer) to purchase a SG mobile phone, branded i.e. OPPO Reno 6, IMEI No. 865924052717852, colour black. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.28,500/- for the purchase of aforesaid OPPO Reno 6 mobile phone to the opposite party No.3 and for that the opposite party No.3 had generated a bill invoice No. 8380 dated 20.03.2022 for Rs.28,500/- against the said purchase of mobile phone in the name of the complainant. The said mobile phone worked in a proper manner for a short time and thereafter the display of the mobile phone started to begin blackish from the bottom of screen and for that the complainant visited at the shop of opposite party No.3 and the disclosed about the said problem, the opposite party No.3 told the complainant that this was a natural one and the same would be recovered automatically. The complainant after believing the words of opposite party No.3 took the mobile phone with him. After a day or two day the blackish-ness of the display screen of the said mobile phone was increased slowly – slowly and for that the complainant again visited to the shop of opposite party No.3, who advised the complainant that the said defect was internal and manufactural one and for that the complainant was advised by opposite party No.3 to visit the authorized service station of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 i.e opposite party No.4 to replace or repair the defect of the mobile phone. Accordingly, the complainant visited to opposite party No.4 i.e authorized service station of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 on 08.08.2022, where the defective mobile phone was handed over to the opposite party No.4 by the complainant. Against that the opposite party No.4 issued worksheet with ASC code: INHR057 to the complainant. After some time the concerned mechanic checked the said mobile phone and reported that the display of the said mobile phone had been internally broken and when the complainant asked at the service station about the change the display then the official of the service station told the complainant that the spare part price was high, whereas the mobile phone of the complainant was under warranty. The complainant asked the official of the service center of opposite party No.4 to replace the display of the aforesaid mobile phone, as the said mobile phone was under warranty, but the opposite parties made one pretext or the other and refused to cure and replace the display of the said mobile phone despite the fact that the said mobile phone was still under warranty, which amounts to deficiency of services on the part of the opposite parties and negligence as well as malpractice and for that the opposite parties were jointly and severally liable for the same. The complainant sent legal notice dated 13.09.2022 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) refund Rs.28,500/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. to the complainant on account of bill for purchase of the mobile phone.
b) re replace a new mobile phone in place of aforesaid defected mobile phone to the complainant or to change the display of the mobile phone of the complainant without any charges.
c) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Notice issued to opposite parties not received back in any form either served or unserved. Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that “Item delivery confirmed”. Mandatory period of 30 days expired. Hence, opposite parties were hereby proceeded against exparte vide order dated14.3.2023.
3. The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.
4 We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties –M/s. Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) refund Rs.28,500/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. to the complainant on account of bill for purchase of the mobile phone. b) replace a new mobile phone in place of aforesaid defected mobile phone to the complainant or to change the display of the mobile phone of the complainant without any charges. c) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses
To establish his case, the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Sateesh Kumar, OPPO REn06 (5C), Ex.C-2 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-3 – Customer service,, Ex.C-4 to 6– photo of mobile, Ex.C-7 – Conceptual plan, Ex.C-8 – legal notice,, Ex.C-9 to C12 – postal receipts,, Ex.C-13 – Adhaar card,
6. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite parties have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite parties have rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite parties.
7. Opposite parties, jointly & severally, are directed to replace the mobile phone in question with the same model to the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to hand over the old mobile phone in question to the opposite parties after receipt of the copy of the order. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 26.05.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
