Versus
- One Plus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., Heera Building, Municipal No. (New) 213, (Old#5), Ward No.76, Richmond Town, Brigade Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560001, through its CEO Mr. Navneet Lakra.
- One Plus Executive Service Centre, Upper Ground Floor, Shop No.2 & 3, Curo Square, Flamez Mall, Gurdev Nagarm, Ludhiana-141001.
- Sachin Gift Gallery, Shop No.12, 13, R.S. Model School Market, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana-141002.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
QUORUM:
SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER
MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Sukhmeet Singh Bhatia, Advocate.
For OPs : Exparte.
ORDER
PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER
1. In brief, the facts of the case are that in the month of November, 2020, the complainant approached opposite party No.3 for purchasing wireless ear buds (Headphones) up to Rs.2000/- only but opposite party No.3 insisted and persisted the complainant to purchase wireless ear buds of make “One Plus”, upon which the complainant purchased One Plus Buds Overseas Version for Rs.5,000/- including GST. Opposite party No.3 assured the complainant about the quality of the product and further assured to replace the product, if any problem occurs in the same. The complainant further stated that in the month of August 2021, the said buds started giving problem and he visited Service Centre of opposite parties at QDIGI-Ludhiana, First Floor, Model House, Char-Khamba Road, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana on 14.08.2021 and submitted the ear buds with service centre of opposite party No.3 vide reference No.FFX7HV. After initial checkup of ear buds by the service centre, the complainant was told that the buds are under warranty period and said faulty buds will be replaced by opposite party No.1 and also issued a job sheet dated 14.08.2021 to the complainant with an assurance to redress the issue by either rectifying the problem in the product or by replacing the said buds. However, the complainant did not get any call or intimation from opposite party No.1 and 2 and then he approached the service centre (which is now at address of opposite party No.2) but the same was permanently closed and relocated at the address of opposite party No.2. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 09.11.2021 to the opposite parties through his counsel Sh. Kawalpreet Singh, Advocate but no reply was received. The complainant even sent emails dated 06.09.2021, 25.09.2021, 06.10.2021 and 04.10.2021 to the opposite parties. The complainant also approached the opposite parties as well as through customer care helpline but the ear buds are untraced, which amounts to deficiency in service and unprofessional attitude of the opposite parties due to which the complainant has suffered mental harassment, pain, agony etc. In the end, the complainant prayed for issuing directions to opposite parties to replace the faulty ear buds with a new one and also to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties through registered post but none turned up for the opposite parties despite service of notice and as such, opposite parties No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.10.2022 and opposite party No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.08.2023 respectively.
3. In support of his exparte claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of his Aadhar card, Ex. C2 is the copy of invoice dated 23.11.2020, Ex. C3 is the copy of service record. Ex. C4 is the copy of legal notice dated 09.11.2021, Ex. C5 to Ex. C7 are the postal receipts, Ex. C8 and Ex. C9 are the copies of emails, Mark-1 to Mark-3 are the copies of emails and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant.
5. The complainant purchased wireless ear buds make One Plus Buds Overseas Version from opposite party No.3 vide bill dated 23.11.2020 Ex. C2 which was having a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase. However, on 14.08.2021, malfunctioning of the product was reported to the authorized service centre of the opposite parties and service record Ex. C3 was generated. The opposite parties promised to replace the defective product. It is evident from the trails of emails Ex. C8 and Ex.C9 for which he had been repeatedly approaching the opposite parties for redressal of his grievance and he also served a legal notice dated 09.11.2021 Ex. C4 but the opposite parties did not respond favourable. Perusal of emails exchanged between the complainant and the opposite parties Ex. C8 and Ex. C9 shows that finally the opposite parties offered to replace the defective product with new one along with voucher of Rs.1,000/-. Despite the acceptance of the offer, the complainant yet to receive the product along with the offered voucher. From the above said facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that the opposite parties are evading the replacement of the product by keeping the complainant guessing. The opposite parties were not only required to deliver a defect free product at the time of purchase but they were also liable to provide the requisite after sale services to the complainant. So there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the given facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the opposite parties are directed to replace One Plus Buds Overseas Version with new one along with composite costs of Rs.2,000/-.
6. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite parties to replace One Plus Buds Overseas Version with new one within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay a composite compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @8% per annum on the said amount from the date of order till its actual payment. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. The file be indexed and consigned to record room.
7. Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.
(Monika Bhagat) (Jaswinder Singh) (SanjeevBatra) Member Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:04.09.2023.
Gobind Ram.
Amandeep Singh Vs One Plus Technology CC/22/285
Present: Sh. Sukhmeet Singh Bhatia, Advocate for the complainant.
OPs exparte.
Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite parties to replace One Plus Buds Overseas Version with new one within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay a composite compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @8% per annum on the said amount from the date of order till its actual payment. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. The file be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Monika Bhagat) (Jaswinder Singh) (SanjeevBatra)
Member Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:04.09.2023.
Gobind Ram.
