Delhi

North East

CC/77/2020

Ms. Radhika Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s OPPO Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jun 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. 77/2020

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ms. Radhika Sharma D/o Sh. Rakesh Sharma R/o LIG Flat No.15 B, Pocket E, GTB Enclave Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.         3.	M/s Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 01, Sector Eco Tech-VII Greater Noida-20136   M/s Oneplus Exclusive Service Centre Hira Builiding, Municipal No. New 213 (Old #5) Ward No.76, Richmond Town, Brigade Road, Bangalore-560001   M/s Croma Store, Pacific Mall, Ghaziabad-201001	Opposite Party No.1         Opposite Party No.2       Opposite Party No.3

 

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

16.12.20 23.02.23 05.06.23

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Ms. 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 she purchased a mobile phone from Opposite Party No.3 on 20.09.20 for a sum of Rs. 27,999/- against invoice no. SLA022010257851. The Complainant stated that after 17 days of purchase the said mobile phone started to show sound problem and the camera of said mobile was also not working properly. On 09.10.20 Complainant lodged complaint with Opposite Party No.2 through email to replace or change the said mobile and on 12.10.20 Complainant received reply from Opposite Party No.2 stating that as per policy of the company the device can be replaced only within fifteen days from the date of its purchase if it found defective. On 22.10.20 Complainant sent legal notice to Opposite Party No.1 through speed post and to Opposite Party No.2 through registered post. The Opposite Party No.1 refuse to take the legal notice and same was received back by counsel for Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 sent confirmation of receipt of legal notice. The Complainant stated that as per direction of this Hon’ble Commission vide order dated 15.01.2021 Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 to repair the mobile in question and after inspection concerned engineer of Opposite Party No.2 stated that the said mobile is bend it will cost Rs. 14,000/- for repair as these types of defects does not cover under warranty period because this type of defect causes only due to fell down of mobile. On 21.01.21 the Complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 got ready to repair the said mobile without any charges and prepared the service record. The Complainant stated that at the time of delivery of said mobile by Opposite Party No.2 customer care officer asked Complainant to sign the Customer Acceptance Agreement in which one hand written clause “Device bend, no further warranty” was added. The Complainant raised objection to this hand written clause and asked customer care officer to delete the hand written clause but customer care officer did not agree to do so. On 31.01.21 Complainant took the delivery of the said mobile after signing the agreement. Hence, this shows deficiency on behalf of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to give the full warranty for the remaining warranty period on the mobile phone.  She further prayed for Rs. 1,50,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 55,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 21.07.2022.

Ex-parte evidence of Complainant

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

Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that she has purchased a mobile phone from Opposite Party No.3 on 20.09.20. The said mobile phone started malfunctioning within 17 days of the purchase. The Opposite Party refused to repair the mobile phone on the ground that there was bend in mobile phone and such type of defects does not cover under warranty period. On the direction of this Commission, the Complainant’s mobile phone was repaired by the Opposite Party without any charge with remark that “Device bend, no further warranty” which was not accepted by the Complainant. The Complainant raised the objection for non-extending the warranty of the mobile phone in question on the ground that device is bend. Hence, there is deficiency of service on behalf of Opposite Parties.
5. The Complainant did not file any document regarding warranty policy of the said mobile phone. She also failed to led any evidence regarding device was not bend and even if device is bend, Opposite Party is under obligation to extend the warranty of the said mobile phone.
6. In our opinion, Complainant is failed to prove any deficiency of service on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
7. Order announced on 05.06.23.

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