Punjab

Sangrur

CC/436/2018

Ashish Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

One Plus India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.S.Sahni

20 May 2019

ORDER

                               

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    436

                                                Instituted on:      15.10.2018

                                                Decided on:       20.05.2019

 

 

Ashish Grover S/o Sh. Subhash Chand Grover R/O H.No.56, Partap Nagar, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             One Plus India, Corporate Office, 5^th Floor, Kabra Excelsior, Embassy Opp. Wipro Park 80 Ft. Road, Koramangala, Bangalore, Karnataka 560025 through its Managing Director.

2.             One Plus Exclusive Service Centre, Hira Building, Municipal No. New 213 (Old #5),  Ward No.76, Richmond Town, Bridge Road, Bangalore, Karnataka 560001 through its Manager.

3.             One Plus Service Centre, Shop No.6-A, Surya Arcade Complex, National Road, Bhai Wala Chowk, Ludhiana 141 001 through its Prop/Partner.

4.             Rocket Kommerce LLP, Kh.No.18/21, 19/25, 34//5,6,7/1min. 14/2/2min, 15/1min, 27, 35/1, 7,8,9/2, 10/1, 10/2, 11min, 12, 13, 14, Village Jamalpur, Gurgaon-122503 through its Managing Director.

5.             Amazon India, Brigade Gate Vs way, 8^th Floor, 26.1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road,  Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore 560055 through its Managing Director.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant    :               In person.

For OP No.5              :               Shri P.S.Sidhu, Adv.

For OP No.1&4         :               Given up.

For OP No.2&3         :               Exparte

 

 

Quorum:    Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

                 Manisha, Member

 

Order by : Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member.

 

1.               Shri Ashish Grover, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant online purchased one mobile One Plus 5T bearing IMEI/serial number 866817033112475 and 866817033112467 on 21.12.2017 for an amount of Rs.32,999/- from OP number 4 through OP number 5.  Further case of the complainant is that from the very beginning the mobile set was not working properly and it was suffering from hanging problem and of network problem and the battery back up of the said mobile is very poor, as such, the complainant approached the OPs, but of no avail.  Further case of the complainant is that on  21.9.2018 the complainant called on the toll free number of the OP and the OP number  3 assured that the mobile set of the complainant would be picked up as the nearest care centre of the company is situated at Ludhiana, but none came to pick up the mobile set from the complainant, nor the mobile set was replaced with a new one as it developed defects during the warranty period. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the price of the mobile set  and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.               In reply filed by OP number 5, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the OP number 5 is not at all responsible for any defects in the mobile set, that the transaction is akin to the complainant/buyer having made a purchase from an independent third party seller from a virtual mall/shopping complex, that the complainant is not a consumer, that there is no occasion for the complainant to approach this Forum, that the relationship shared between OP number 5 and seller is on a principal to principal basis, and either of the parties are neither willing to, nor assume any responsibility for action, inaction, warranties, liabilities etc. On merits, it is stated that OP number 5 is not a manufacturer nor it is responsible for any defect in the mobile set. Lastly, the OP number 5 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3.               Record shows that the OPs number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte. The OP number 1 and 4 were given up by the complainant himself.  

 

4.               The learned counsel for the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 5 has produced Ex.OPW5/1 to Ex.OPW5/5 and closed evidence.

 

5.               We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               From the perusal of the documents placed on the file by the parties, we find that the complainant purchased one mobile set One Plus T5 in question vide invoice dated 21.12.2017 for Rs.32,999/- from OP number 4 through OP number 5 as Ops number  1 to 3 are the manufacturers. The complainant’s case is that from the beginning, the above said mobile set was not working properly and there was often problem of hanging in the mobile set and it does not catch the network of the network provider. The battery backup of the mobile set is also very poor. Further during the warranty period on 21.9.2018 the said mobile started to give some other problems such as network missing, touch not working properly and ear speaker etc. and in this regard, the complainant called upon the customer care of Ops on 21.9.2018 to get the problem sort out and the Ops issued request number D17ID5OK3D and assured through SMS that OP number 3 will pick up the mobile set in question, but the same was never collected by OP number 3 from the complainant for repairs. The complainant has further alleged that the mobile set in question is suffering from manufacturing defect which can not be rectified. To support his claim regarding the manufacturing defect in the mobile set, the complainant has placed on record the certificate of Singh Connectivity dated 28.09.2018 Ex.C-4, wherein Mr. Damanjit Singh proprietor of Singh Connectivity has opined that the mobile set was giving the problem of network missing, touch no working properly and ear speaker and he checked the said mobile phone and found that the same has manufacturing defect, which is not curable. The complainant has also produced  an affidavit of Mr. Damanjit Singh Ex.C-5.   The OPs no. 2 and 3 chose to remain exparte. In our view defect(s)  can occur any time and persist over the times and occurrence of the defects in this case have been taken place within the warranty period and the relief is required to be given to the complainant.

 

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the  OP number 3  to pick up the mobile set in question from the complainant within a period of 15 days from the receipt of copy of the order under proper receipt and hand over the same to the complainant after rectification of the faults in the mobile set within one month from the receipt of the mobile set in question from the complainant. The OP number 3 is further directed to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.2000/- on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation expenses within one month.

 

8.             A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. 

                        Pronounced.

                        May 20, 2019.

                                            

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                   Presiding Member

 

 

                                                        (Manisha)

                                                        Member