DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2023.                                                                                             

                           Filed on: 22/02/2023

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                              Member     

C.C.NO. 161/2023

COMPLAINANT

Manoj.M, Aiswarya, MRRA 63, Netaji Road, Vazhakkala South, Kakkanad West (P.0), Kochi, Kerala, Pin-682030.

OPPOSITE PARTY

Oneplus Technology India Private Limited, UB City 24, Vittal Mallaya Road, KG Halli, D'souza Layout, Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru-560001, Karnataka.

F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President:

1.       A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

This complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against OnePlus for issues with a TV purchased from FLIPKART on 17.10.2021. The OnePlus U1S 126 cm (50 inches) Ultra HD (4K) LED Smart TV developed display problems on 10.10.2022. After contacting OnePlus Customer Care, a technician identified the need for a panel replacement. Despite numerous follow-ups over a month, the problem persisted due to claimed parts shortages and unmet promises of resolution. Frustrated, the complainant filed a grievance (Docket No: 4058797) with INGRAM. OnePlus initially proposed a TV replacement through a coupon but later opted to replace the panel, delaying the fix by 10 more days. The TV has been dysfunctional for about 90 days, within its warranty period. The complainant alleges OnePlus showed no real intent to resolve the issue, offering only false assurances. The complainant seeks a refund of Rs 38,000, compensation of Rs 37,000 for mental anguish, lost wages, and harassment, and suitable litigation costs.

2) Notice

The Commission sent notice to the opposite party, which were acknowledged by them, but they did not file their version. Therefore, they have been set as ex-parte.

3). Evidence

          The complainant submitted an ex-parte proof affidavit along with eight documents, which were marked  as Exhibits A-1 to A-5. These documents include:

Exhibit A1: The invoice for the purchase of the TV.

Exhibit A2: A screenshot of the complaint made to OnePlus.

Exhibit A3: The complaint filed with INGRAM, along with the company's response to INGRAM.

Exhibit A4: Screenshots of a Google form sent by the company, proposing a solution.

Exhibit A5: A copy of the complainant's AADHAR card.

4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:

i)       Whether the complaint maintainable or not?

ii)      Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?

iii)     If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?

iv)     Costs of the proceedings if any?

5)      The issues mentioned above are considered together and are        answered as follows:

In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. Copy of the Invoice issued to the complainant. (Exhibits A-1). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.

The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. Therefore, the complainant requests the commission to grant the relief sought, including compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practices.

The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written versions in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them.  Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party.  We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).

We have meticulously reviewed the complaint affidavit and the documents submitted by the complainant. We have extracted the pertinent portion of the complaint below for our analysis:

“After contacting the One Plus Customer care over phone, they sent a technician who inspected the TV and told me that the Panel of the TV need replacement. Even after a month there was no resolution to the problem. Had called the customer care several times but they would give excuses of not availability of parts, and would falsely assure of resolution. Then I had to register a complaint (Docket No: 4058797) at Integrated Grievance Redressal Mechanism (INGRAM). After the complaint I was contacted by One Plus and assured that the old TV would be picked up and I would be given a coupon with which I would be able to purchase a new TV at their website. Later they called me again after 10 days and told that the Panel of the TV would be replaced and it would take another 10 days. My TV has been nonfunctional for almost 90 days now, and that too in the warranty period.”

Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar v/s Pandit Automotive Ltd. & Another, Revision Petition No. 3519 of 2006 in Appeal No. 1953 of 2005, Decided On, 25 February 2008, At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. AIR 2008 (NOC)2260(NCC)

 “In this case, from day one onwards the vehicle was found to be defective which was admitted by the dealer himself through his letters. Naturally, encountered with these problems the consumer must have been shell shocked compelling him to knock at the doors of the Consumer Forum. Even before the Consumer Forum in the written submissions filed by OP 1, there is a clear admission of the manufacturing defects. Hence, we are convinced that the vehicle did suffer from manufacturing defects. This is a clear case of res ipsa loquitur i.e. facts speak themselves hence there is no need to refer the vehicle to a third party for giving an opinion.”

          In the present case, after a short duration of the purchase of the OnePlus U1S 126 cm (50-inch) Ultra HD (4K) LED Smart TV developed display problems, the problem occurred in it with in the warranty period. we are of the view that the Smart TV had some manufacturing defect not capable of being removed and the same was not worthy of use.

1. Maintainability of the Complaint: As per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is defined as a person who buys goods or avails of services for a consideration that has been paid or promised. The complainant, as evidenced by Exhibit A1 (the invoice), clearly falls within the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, the complaint is maintainable.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?

The evidence presented by the complainant, including the unchallenged affidavit and documents, establishes that there was a deficiency in service from OnePlus. The TV developed issues within its warranty period, and the opposite party failed to provide a timely and effective resolution, causing mental anguish and harassment to the complainant.

3. If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?

Considering the evidence and the unchallenged claims of the complainant, it is evident that the complainant is entitled to relief. The opposite party's failure to respond to the complaint and provide a satisfactory resolution indicates their negligence and unfair trade practices.

4. Costs of the proceedings if any?

Considering the circumstances of the case and the complainant's successful presentation of evidence, the complainant is entitled to the costs of these proceedings.

In the absence of a dedicated 'Right to Repair' law in India, instances exist where the judiciary has intervened to address related concerns. In the case of Shri Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars Limited & Ors., the Honourable Competition Commission of India (CCI) emphatically affirmed that any anti-competitive actions taken by the automobile industry under the pretext of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) would be terminated and declared void. This specific case revolved around the issue of restricting consumers from purchasing goods or services exclusively from authorized car dealers. Another noteworthy case, Sanjeev Nirwani v. HCL, established the obligation for companies to provide spare parts beyond the warranty period. Failure to do so was deemed an unfair trade practice.

In light of the circumstances, the opposite party failed to provide the necessary spare parts for the product to address the defects, thereby exhibiting a deficiency in service and engaging in unfair trade practices. Under the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, Section 2(41) defines a "restricted trade practice" as any trade behavior that is seen as restrictive, unfair, or deceptive and is clearly outlined in that section. In the given situation, the complainant claims that the manufacturer used specific tactics to pressure the consumer into purchasing an additional product from them, which is essentially a "restricted trade practice”.

Manufacturers often employ alluring advertising tactics to persuade consumers into purchasing their products. However, a recurring and concerning issue arises when these companies neglect their responsibility to provide the necessary spare even with in the warranty period and consumable parts essential for the proper functioning of the product throughout its expected lifespan. This widespread problem affects consumers across a broad spectrum of product categories. When manufacturers refuse to supply these crucial components, it effectively forces consumers to discard products that are still operational. Such behaviour constitutes an unfair trade practice, as it coerces consumers into buying replacements, thereby artificially boosting the manufacturer's sales and profits.

The deliberate withholding of essential spare and consumable parts by manufacturers leaves consumers with limited choices, compelling them to abandon fully functional products and procure replacements. This not only places financial burdens on consumers but also contributes to environmental degradation through an increase in electronic waste.

We find that issues (i) to (iv) also favour the complainant, as they are a result of the serious deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Naturally, the complainant has experienced a significant amount of inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, financial losses, etc., due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practices by the Opposite Party.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the complainant.

Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:

1. The Opposite Party shall refund the sum of ₹38,000/- (Thirty-Eight Thousand Only) to the complainant, corresponding to the invoice price of the OnePlus U1S 126 cm (50-inch) Ultra HD (4K) LED Smart TV.
2. The Opposite Party shall pay the sum of ₹20,000/- (Twenty Thousand Only) as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices they committed.
3. The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant the sum of ₹10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only) towards the cost of the proceedings.

The Opposite Party is liable for the above-mentioned directions. They must comply within 30 days from the date of receiving a copy of this order. If they fail to do so, the amounts ordered in points (i) and (ii) above will attract interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint (22.02.2023) until the date of realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15^th day of December, 2023.

Sd/-                     

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-  

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar  

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exhibit A1: The invoice for the purchase of the TV.

Exhibit A2: A screenshot of the complaint made to OnePlus.

Exhibit A3: The complaint filed with INGRAM, along with the company's response to INGRAM.

Exhibit A4: Screenshots of a Google form sent by the company, proposing a solution.

Exhibit A5: A copy of the complainant's AADHAR card.

Opposite party’s evidence

Nil

kp/

Despatch date:

By hand:                                                                        

by post:           

                                                                             C.C. No. 161/2023

                                                                        Order date: 15/12/2023