BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2022
Filed on: 14/08/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC.No. 342/2018
Between
COMPLAINANT
Vinod P., Malikamadom, Pattanakadu, Cherthala
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- The Manager, M/s. Oneplus India Pvt.Ltd., Hira Building, Municipal No. 213, Ward No. 76, Richmond Town, Brigade Road, Bangalore 560 001.
- The Manager, Regenersis (India) Pvt. Ltd, Door No. 55/2815A, 2nd Floor, Melka Tower, Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthara, Kochi 682 020.
O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant had purchased a One plus 3T Mobile phone for Rs 25,999/- through Amazone India online portal vide Invoice No BOM4-1463 dated 06/09/2017 which was collected by his son and delivered to him. The phone has got a 1-year warranty and to ensure uninterrupted service the complainant purchased an extended warranty also from September 2018 to August 2019 for the phone on Feb 18 for Rs.1,799/ (Annexure 2). The phone was working fine till July, 2018, however, started showing some battery charging issues from the end of July 2018. The complainant took the phone in the fully dead condition to One plus India authorized service center M/s Regenersis, Kadavanthra, Kochi on 26-07-18 and the service center checked the phone and informed him that the motherboard is defective and the litmus paper colour is changed and hence they suspect water entry into the phone and hence repair cannot be done under warranty. They advised changing motherboard for which approximately Rs.17,500/- needs to be paid. Though informed by the service center, the complainant was not fully convinced about the colour change of the litmus paper as the interior of the phone did not show any corrosion or dull appearance (which would have been there if water was present), and all other functions of the motherboard except battery charging were intact and still working. Hence the complainant sent a letter to the company by E-mail including the above facts and requesting them to service the phone under warranty however they have not considered it. The complainant had exchanged a few e-mails also with the Customer Support of the company on 8th Aug 2018, the complainant again visited the Service Center as directed by Customer Support and they informed him after interacting with service section that the issue of motherboard could be due to moisture or water which cannot be covered under warranty and motherboard needs to be replaced. Since all other functions of the phone are available, it is presumed that problem is only with the charging circuit of the motherboard. Hence the complainant believes that the problem is nothing but a random failure of the motherboard which is a very common phenomenon and which may not be due to water exposure. As regards the colour change of litmus paper, the complainant submission is that there were continuous heavy rains in Kochi during end of July, 2018 and probably the high moisture content prevalent in the atmosphere must have caused the colour change. The loss suffered due to the deficiency in service from the company had affected the complainant’s productivity. Since there is negligence and deficiency of service by the opposite parties, it is liable to compensate loss suffered by the complainant due to the negligence.
2) Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the all the Opposite Parties and they did not appear before the Commission despite receiving the notice and did not file their version. Hence the opposite parties set ex-parte.
3. Evidence
The complainant had produced 4 documents and marked as Exhibit A1 to Exhibit A4.
1. Exhibit A1: Invoice No BOM4-1463 dated 06-09-2017.
2. Exhibit A2: Extended warranty also for from September, 2018 to August, 2019
3. Exhibit A3: One Plus Service Record
4. Exhibit A4: Copy of e-mail
4) The main points to be analyzed in this case are as follows:
I) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
II) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
III) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
IV) Costs of the proceedings if any?
The Commission has gone through exhibits Exhibit A1 to Exhibit A4. The issues mentioned above are considered together and is answered as follows:
The complaint is maintainable, the Opposite Parties are set ex-parte on 29-02-2020 and have filed no version or adduced any evidence. The onus of proof in establishing a prima facie deficiency in service is on the Complainant as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors (2020) 9SCC 424.
“6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without 4 (2000) 1 SCC 66 10 attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent. ………….”
In the above case the Complainant has not produced any evidence and has not sought for the appointment of an expert commissioner. The deficiency in service is alleged regarding the ingress of water/moisture which can be ascertained only by an expert commissioner. We are of the considered opinion that deficiency in service cannot be prima facie attributed to the opposite parties in the absence of production of the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by the Opposite Parties. The terms and conditions of EXHIBIT A2 Extended Warranty is not produced by the complainant herein. Furthermore, no unfair trade on the part of the Opposite Parties is alleged or established in the complaint against the Opposite Parties.
We are of the considered opinion that the complaint has failed to establish deficiency in service on the opposite parties and thus the second and third issues are answered against the complainant. There is no order as to the cost of the proceedings.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 12th day of July, 2022.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Despatch date:
By hand: By post Senior Superintendent.
kp/
CC No.342/2018
Order Date:12/07/2022
