Sri Sudhakar Senapothi    - Member.       

Complainant Biswamani Panigrahi has filed this case u/s 35 of CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for not replacing his defective mobile set in spite of repeated approaches and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to award compensation for the cost of damage of the Cell Phone in favour of the petitioner.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant purchased one ONEPLUS 9 PRO 5G PHONE on 29.03.2021 at an cost of Rs. 69,999/- from OP No. 2 vide Receipt No. 2777 dt. 29.03.2021. Fifteen (15) days after the purchase of the said phone, the phones started mal functioning and generated extreme heat, hanging, software misbehavior and network problem. He immediately contacted the OP No. 2 to sort out his problem. But as he could not sort out the problem, he contacted thrice with the Customer Care Service and was advised to update the software and even after doing that, the phone was not functioning. Finally, the customer care service suggested to take the phone to the nearest service centre at Raipur. As per their advice, he collected the number of Service Centre, contacted him and was advised to take the phone to their Service Centre physically. On being advised, he was proceeding to Raipur in his vehicle and on the way, he met with an accident as a result of which the vehicle as well as the cell phone got completely damaged which was reported to the police. He was going to Raipur only for the reason to get his phone repaired and the malfunctioning of the phone is the reason for his accident as he was proceeding to Raipur for that purpose. The phone was covered under warranty. But, the service centre as well as the Opposite Parties refused to replace the phone for which he has filed this case before this Commission for the reliefs as prayed for.

2.           Notice was duly served on the Opposite Parties. But, they preferred not to appear nor challenged the allegations raised against them in any manner for which they were set ex-parte on 15.09.2023.

3.           It is settled principle of law that where the Opposite Parties in spite of service of notice on them do not challenge the allegations raised against them, it is deemed to have been admitted by them. In the present case, notice was issued to all the Opposite Parties by Registered Post on 09.04.2022 and has been served on the OP No. 1 on 19.04.2022 and on OP No. 2 on 13.04.2022. it is seen from the documents filed by the complainant that he has purchased the mobile set in question vide Invoice No. 2777 dt. 29.03.2021 for a consideration of Rs. 69999/-. It is further seen that the complainant has filed a FIR in Mandirhussud PS in Chhattisgarh regarding the accident of the vehicle on 17.07.2021. So, it is very much clear from the documents on record that the complainant had purchased the alleged mobile and it developed troubles and on his way to Raipur to the service centre of the OPs, he met with an accident and the mobile got damaged.

4.           The fact and defects inherent in the mobile were reported to the Opposite Parties soon after its functioning within a period of 15 days and the complainant was frequently complaining regarding the malfunctioning of the mobile set. So, there is no doubt about the fact that the mobile set had inherent manufacturing defect which could not be removed in spite of repeated advices given by the dealer as well as the customer care centre. Unfortunately on his way to service centre, his vehicle met with an accident leading to further damage to the mobile set which was beyond the control of the complainant. Since the mobile set was having defects inherent in the mobile set, the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and harassment suffered by him and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Parties. The OPs are jointly and severally liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are directed to replace the cell phone with a new one within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own cost.