DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/114/2023
Date of Institution: 13.09.2023
Date of Decision: 29.10.2024
Sandeep Kumar son of Pawan Kumar resident of B-9/24, Near Ganesh Mandir Killa Mohalla, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala now residing at Shivam Shakti Vatika Colony Kothi No. 109, Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. New Ashoka Electrical Store, near Aggarwal Dharamshala Handiaya Bazar Barnala through its authorized person.
2. Oppo Mobiles India Private Limited 5th floor Tower-B, Building No. 8, DLF Cybere City Gurgaon, Haryana 12200 through its Managing Director/authorized persons.
3. Oppo Service Centre near Balmiki Mandir K C Road, Barnala Tehsil and District Barnala authorized person of OP No. 2 Oppo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. Through its authorized persons.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. Sonu Kumar Ladwal Adv counsel for complainant.
Opposite party No. 1 exparte.
Sh. S.S. Dhaliwal Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 2 & 3.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari: Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against New Ashoka Electrical Store, near Aggarwal Dharamshala Handiaya Bazar Barnala through its authorized person & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is the consumer of the goods manufactured by opposite party No. 2 and sold by opposite party No. 1 as the complainant purchased one brand new Mobile set of Oppo F-21S Pro 5G 8/128 GB 866875067Q 79192 from opposite party No. 1vide bill No/Invoice No. GST 0722 dated 28.4.2023 amounting to Rs. 25,000/-. It is alleged that at the time of purchasing the opposite party No. 1 assured that the Mobile is of good quality and it will render good services. On 23.8.2023 the said Mobile stopped working and on 24.8.2023 the complainant handed over said mobile to opposite party No. 1 who directed the complainant to approach the opposite party No. 3 and the opposite party No. 3 returned the mobile set to the complainant after making repair and assured that the mobile is in working order. It is further alleged that on 3.9.2023 said mobile set again developed some defect and stopped working and the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 who refused to take its possession by saying that mobile set is beyond repair and refused to refund the sale price of the mobile and raised the demand of Rs. 6,500/- as price extra charges in lieu of replacement. The complainant number of times approached the opposite party to get replaced the mobile set but all in vain. The said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in the service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite parties may be directed to replace the mobile set with brand new mobile or refund a sum of Rs. 25,000/- paid by the complainant.
- Further, to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental harassment and agony and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.10.2023 due to non appearance.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant suppressed material facts from this Commission. The complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint. The complainant has not come with clean hands etc.
5. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had purchased a OPPO F21s PRO 5G device from the opposite party No. 1 on 28.4.2023 and the complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 on 24.8.2023 as the mobile set stopped working on 23.8.2023 then the opposite party No. 3 repaired the mobile set and handed over the same to complainant. It is further alleged that on 3.9.2023 the phone again stopped working and after inquiry about the product it was found that the phone cannot be repaired now and the complainant wanted to repair the mobile handset IW but due to liquid damaged as per company policy the opposite parties cannot repair IW handset. It is further submitted that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed to opposite party No. 1. At this junction, the complainant has come up with a concocted story to harass the opposite party and ask for compensation unreasonably. The present complaint qua the opposite party No. 1 as the same is baseless, without cause of action and not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
6. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written version of opposite parties 2 & 3 and denied the averments as mentioned in the version.
7. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, copy of invoice Ex.C-2, copy of EMI Number Ex.C-3, copy of estimate bill Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
8. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 have failed to tender any evidence despite ample opportunities and the evidence of the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 was closed vide order dated 26.9.2024.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
10. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of purchasing, the opposite party No. 1 assured that the Mobile is of good quality and it will render good services. It is further argued that on 23.8.2023 the said Mobile stopped working and on 24.8.2023 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and handed over the said mobile to opposite party No. 1 who directed the complainant to approach the opposite party No. 3 and the opposite party No. 3 returned the mobile set to the complainant after making repair and assured that the mobile set is in working order. It is further argued that on 3.9.2023 said mobile set again developed some defect and stopped working and the complainant again approached the opposite party No. 1 who refused to take its possession by saying that mobile set is beyond repair and refused to refund the sale price of the mobile and raised the demand of Rs. 6,500/- as price extra charges in lieu of replacement.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 argued that after inquiry about the product it was found that the phone cannot be repaired now and the complainant wanted to repair the mobile handset IW but due to liquid damaged as per company policy the opposite parties cannot repair IW handset. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 argued that the complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove his case. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 further argued that the expert opinion is must to prove the manufacturing defect.
12. The allegation of the complainant is that on 3.9.2023 the said mobile set again developed some defect and stopped working and the opposite parties raised the demand of Rs. 6,500/- as extra charges in lieu of replacement as the above said mobile set got damaged due to liquid damaged and as per company policy the opposite parties cannot repair the handset. The complainant has placed on record copy of estimate dated 5.9.2023 issued by the opposite parties i.e. Ex.C-4 vide which it is mentioned that “the handset on inspection found to be Liquid Damage/Physical Damage”. Further, in the above said estimate Ex.C-4 the total cost of damaged parts is mentioned as Rs. 6,485/-. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 further argued that the complainant has failed to produce any expert evidence to rebut the allegation of the opposite parties that the handset has stopped working as the same is damaged due to Liquid Damage/Physical Damage as mentioned in Ex.C-4.
13. Further, to prove their stand the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 relied upon the citation of the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi titled Pawan Kumar Versus M/s Nissan Motors India Private Limited bearing Revision Petition No. 2276 of 2017 decided on 3.1.2018 vide which the Hon'ble National Commission held that “Petitioner has failed to place on record any expert opinion regarding alleged manufacturing defect in his vehicle. Deficiency not proved.” The opposite parties also relied upon the citation of the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi titled Sanjay Singh Versus Dabloo Bhagat bearing Revision Petition No. 2840 of 2016 decided on 11.5.2018 vide which the Hon'ble Commission held that “The complainant failed to place on record any technical/expert report to support his allegation that the tractor in question was defective.”
14. On the basis of the above discussion and citations as referred to above, this Commission is of the view that the complainant has failed to prove manufacturing defect. The onus to prove the manufacturing defect is lying upon complainant. The complainant failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that the mobile set in question was not liquid damage/physical damage. Therefore, the opposite parties are not under obligation to replace the said mobile in question or to refund the price of the same. In this way, the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
15. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
29th Day of October, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
