Date of filing:21.07.2022

                                                      Date of Disposal:29.12.2022

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.149/2022

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR:MEMBER

Brijesh Prasad

Aged about 48 years

A2-112, SLS Splendor Apartment

Behind Med Plus Pharmacy

Bellandur,

Bangalore 560103

(Complainant- In person)

OnePlus ESC – Brigade Road

OnePlus Exclusive Service Center

Hira Building,

Municipal No.New 213 (old #5)

Ward No.76, Richmond town,

Brigade Road

Bangalore 560 001

Represented by

Authorized Signatory.                      …     OPPOSITE PARTY

(Opposite party - exparte)

*****

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR, MEMBER

The present complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the Opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the loss caused to the complainant physically  and mentally.

2. Brief facts of the complaint:

The complainant submits that he was working in IT company as a consultant. He brought “One Plus Nord 5G” mobile phone from Amazon E commerce site on 18.01.2022 for Rs.24,999/-. 

3.      Further the complainant submits that on 19.01.2022 the complainant received the mobile.  The said mobile started giving problems within a span of one week and the complainant being the IT professional started facing problems at his professional work i.e. Login to company domain and getting micro soft authentication  security code and verification of the employee and also not able to get the authentication call and OTP.  Further he submits that, on 16.06.2022 he went to service centre of Opposite party at Brigade Road, Bangalore and explained the issue of the  mobile. The front desk executive of the centre after investigation informed the complainant that the issue is with software and need to reinstall with update version. The complainant agreed the same and reinstalled the software with new updated version.  Again on 17.06.2022 the same problem repeated. He immediately contacted the service centre, the service centre executive told to the complainant to bring the mobile to service centre.  On 23.06.2022 the complainant visited the Opposite party service centre to handover the mobile phone and Mr.Anand who was working as Manager in that service centre asked the complainant to keep his mobile for analysis at Service Centre for 10 days.  After  12 days Mr.Anand called the complainant and said that his mobile was ready to use.  The complainant went and collected the mobile and at that time Mr.Anand told that the issue was with mobile cover which the complainant was using for his mobile. The complainant faced the same issues again and again, finally he sent a mail on 30.06.2022 to Opposite party.  Further the complainant submits that he got a call from Miss Dimple and she introduced herself that she was from Koramangala Branch Office of One Plus and informed that she will look into the matter.   Again Mr. Anand told the complainant to change the SIM with new one and update the status to Dimple. 

4.     The complainant on 03.07.2022 went to Reliance Store and requested old SIM with new one. He changed the SIM with new one, on the Opposite party advise. But of no use.  Again the complainant faced the same problem when he visited hospital along with his aged parents, and he was not able to make the online payment with this defective mobile. The complainant personally and professionally faced many problems and gone through mental stress.  Hence the complainant left with no other alternative to approach this commission for redressal of his grievances under defective product and deficiency of service of Opposite party under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Hence this complaint.

5.     The notice of the complaint was duly served on the Opposite party. They remained absent. Hence, placed exparte.

6.      The counsel for the complainant had filed affidavit in form of her evidence in chief. Ex P1 to P6 are marked. 

7.      Heard the arguments.

8. On the basis of the pleading and documents, the points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether the complainant proves that the product is defective one?

ii) Whether the complainant proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

iii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought in the complaint?

 iv) What order?

   9.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In affirmative.

Point No.2 :  In affirmative.

Point No.3 :  Partly in affirmative.

Point No.4 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

POINT NO.1 & 2:-

10.   PW-1 has reiterated the facts of the complaint. To avoid the repetition of the facts of the complaint of have discussed Point No.1 and 2 together. The complainant has produced and marked Ex. P1 to P6 documents. Ex.P1 is the Tax Invoice of the product i.e. One Plus Nord CE 5G. It is evident that the complainant purchased the said product and on perusal of Ex. P3 i.e. Email communication. In the email dated 17.06.2022 the complainant clearly stated that the said mobile suddenly stopped working, and there was no incoming and outgoing calls. For this reason the complainant again and again need to restart his mobile. In another email dated 30.06.2022 the complainant again wrote that  he was still facing the issue with the said mobile and also wrote that he had visited service centre. Even after the service of the mobile was facing many mobile problems, because of the defective product the complainant’s personal and professional work got hampered. The complainant also produced and marked Ex. P4 i.e. Tax Invoice of hospital to show that he was not able to make online payment and made all his mother’s medical bills payment through his debit/credit card. 

11.    The complainant being a IT professional was not able to login to his job because he was unable to get authentication calls and OTP’s as it is required to get login to his job, online/offline. The Opposite party did not challenge the say of the complainant by filing version and by giving rebuttal evidence.

12.   All these facts shows that the product was  defective and the complainant’s professional and personal work got hampered and he suffered mentally and financially. Thus all these acts amounts to defective product and deficiency of service on the part of Opposite party. Hence I answer Point No.1 and 2 in affirmative.

POINT No.3:

13.   The complainant made a prayer to direct the Opposite party to pay the compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- towards loss caused to him. Hence, the point to be considered here is that the subject mobile handset purchased on 18.01.2022 and complainant visited the Opposite party service centre on 16.06.2022 and also sent an email on 17.06.2022 reported the problems facing due to the defective product i.e. mobile by the complainant. The complainant started facing the problems within a span of three months of its purchase. Definitely falls under the period of guarantee and warranty of the product and Opposite party failed to make the product use worthy. Even after many services. Thus I hold the subject product i.e. mobile handset is the defective one, which attracts  Section 2(10) of Consumer Protection Act.  Opposite party also failed to make the mobile of the complainant use worthy which attracts Section 2(11). Hence the Opposite party  is liable under Section 2(11) and Section 2(38) of Consumer Protection Act 2019. I consider the complainant is entitled for the refund of the cost of the product Rs.24,999/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of the mobile i.e. 18.01.2022 till realization. The complainant has produced a memo with service record dated 22.12.2022 that the subject product is at the Opposite party service centre. In addition to, the complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the personal and professional loss and hardship caused to him due to the defective product. In addition, the complainant is the party in person is also entitled to the litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.  Hence I answer Point No.3 partly in affirmative.

14.  POINT NO.4:- In view of the discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following;

The complaint is allowed in part.

The Opposite party is directed to refund the cost of the product i.e. Rs.24,999/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of the mobile i.e. 18.01.2022 till realization.

The complainant is directed to return the defective mobile handset to the Opposite party.

Further the opposite party is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.

The opposite party shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, it fails to comply the order within the said period, the amount of Rs.15,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 29^th day of December, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S)    (SHIVARAMA. K)    
  144616126.                        

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Mr. Brijesh Prasad, the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainants side:

1: Copy of the computer download tax invoice dt.19.01.2022.

2: Copy of the screen shot.

3: Copy of the two email conversations.

4. Copy of the screen shot of tax invoices of St. John Medical college and Hospital and Sakra Hospital.

5. Copy of whatsapp screen shots.

6. Copy of the professional proof.

Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

- Nil -

Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:

- Nil -

(REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S)    (SHIVARAMA. K)