Delhi

North

CC/210/2023

GAURAV GULATI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

04 Oct 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.: 210/2023

In the matter of:

Gaurav Gulati

S/O Sh. Tilak Raj,

A-84, 3rd Floor, Kamla Nagar,

Delhi-110007                                                          …       Complainant

VERSUS

OnePlus Technology India Pvt. Ltd.

(Through Managing Director/ Director/ Authorised Officer)

UB City, 24, Vittal Mallya Road, KG Halli,

D’Souza Layout, Ashok Nagar,

Bengaluru-560001 (Karnataka)                                  …       Opposite No. 1

 

OPPO Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd.

(Through Its MD/ CEO/ Authorised Officers)

5th Floor, Tower Building No. 8,

DLF Cyber City, Gurugram- 122002 (Haryana)  …       Opposite No. 2

 

Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.

(Through its MD/ CEO/ Authorised Officer)

8th Floor, Brigade Gateway, 26/1, Rajkumar Road,

Bengaluru-560055 (Karnataka)                                  …       Opposite No. 3

 

ORDER
04/10/2023

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar

1. This is a peculiar case, in which the Complainant herein has alleged that the mobile phone traded and marketed by M/s Oneplus Technology India Pvt Ltd (OP-1 herein) which was manufactured by M/s OPPO Mobiles India Pvt Ltd (OP-2 herein) exploded causing injuries to the Complainant, but he has neither sought replacement or refund for the said product nor has he sought any relief with respect to defective goods. In the prayer, the Complainant, who is also an Advocate by profession, has claimed relief with respect to “deficiency of service” qua OPs without specifying any deficiency of service by OPs. The allegations of the Complainant qua OPs are with respect to defect in the product, but the same has not been prayed for.

2. Briefly stated, the Complainant purchased a mobile phone “OnePlus Nord 2 5G (12 GB RAM and 256 GB Storage)] from M/s Amazon Sellers Services Pvt Ltd (OP-3 herein) on 24.08.2021, which was delivered to him on 25.08.2021. The said phone was in regular use by the Complainant till 08.09.2021, when there was an accident and said phone, allegedly on its own, caught fire and exploded. As a result of explosion, there were injuries to the Complainant. He has also lodged an FIR against the OPs and the said phone is now said to be in custody of the Investigating Officer. By way of this complaint, the Complainant has sought following prayers against the OPs:

“7. That in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the humble claimant most humbly claiming the following reliefs from this Hon'ble Commission:-

i)        Pass an order/direction to the O.Ps to remove the deficiency in service and making a payment of Rs.7 Crores for loss of income along with an interest @ 18% per annum from date of incident till actual realization; and

ii)       Direct the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.8 crores towards compensation for causing physical, mental, social, emotional and financial losses; mental agony, physical & social harassment, pain and suffering due to unfair trade practice & deficiency in service rendered by you the O.P.s and also for damages/losses to the Career opportunities, life partner, healthy life etc. to the complainant, with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of incident till actual realization towards; and

iii) Direct the O.Ps. to pay a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards costs and miscellaneous expenses incurred by the complainant in claiming his legitimate claim; and

iv) Grant any other relief in favour of the complainant in as deem fit by this Hon'ble Commission, in the interest of justice.”

3. In this Complainant, the Complainant is primarily claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 7 Crore on account of loss of income and a sum of Rs. 8 Crore on account of compensation for causing physical, mental, social, emotional and financial losses; mental agony, physical & social harassment, pain and suffering due to unfair trade practice & deficiency in service rendered by you the O.P.s and also for damages/losses to the Career opportunities, life partner, healthy life etc. to the complainant. Interestingly, in the relief claimed in para 7 (ii) of the complaint, the Complainant has claimed relief on account of “unfair trade practice & deficiency in service rendered by you the O.P.s”. There appears to be a clear typographical error in the said prayer as the Complainant has referred this Commission as the OPs. However, we ignore such typographical error to understand that the Complainant has claimed relief on account of “unfair trade practice & deficiency in service rendered by the O.P.s”.

4. We have enquired about how the Complainant is claiming such huge amount of compensation without proper justification. It is to be noted that the Complainant has filed his income tax returns for the assessment years 2018-19 to 2023-24. In none of these years the income of the Complainant was more than the threshold of paying tax, i.e. the incomes of the Complainant in all these years were below the taxable income limit. We posed this question to the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Complainant that when the income of the Complainant was not at the taxable income limit in all these years, how the Complainant has already had a loss of income to the tune of Rs. 7 Crore. In reply, the Complainant has filed a chart indicating that such loss of income is on account of loss of prospective future income till the Complainant attains the age of 62 years. As on date, the Complainant is said to be 35 years of age. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has suggested that the income of the Complainant is assumed to be increasing @ 10% per annum, accordingly the chart for the future income has been prepared. He suggested that till the year 2049-2050, as per the chart so filed, the income of the Complainant is projected to be at Rs 8,79,18,504/- but the Complainant has acclaimed the loss of income to the tune of Rs. 7 Crore only. We further posed a question that in case the Complainant is assuming total loss of income, that must mean that the Complainant must have been declared 100 per cent disable and he is unable to lead his profession any more. In such an event, whether the Complainant herein has obtained any disability certificate indicating 100% disability and whether the Complainant, being an Advocate, has surrendered his licence in event of his assumed inability to lead his profession. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, upon instructions from his client, has answered to both these questions in negative.

5. Further there is a formula for payment of compensation under the Motor Accident Claims. Even applying the said formula, the loss of current income and the future income of the Complainant cannot be at such high level. It is also to be noted that the Complainant has assumed that till he attains the age of 62 years, he will not have any professional income on his own. This assumption is not well founded with the fact that the Complainant has neither been declared 100% disabled nor has he surrendered his licence to practice on account of his alleged inability to practice as an Advocate. Hence, in our opinion, claiming such huge compensation on account of loss of income is not justified.

6. On the account of the claim of Rs. 8 Crore on account of compensation for causing physical, mental, social, emotional and financial losses; mental agony, physical & social harassment, pain and suffering due to unfair trade practice & deficiency in service rendered by OPs, and also for damages/ loss to the career opportunity, life partner, healthy life etc., the Complainant has annexed the copy of the wedding card and alleged that his wedding was cancelled by the bride’s side on account of hearing loss, psychological and neurological disorders etc. However, none of the medical records filed by the Complainant suggest such hearing loss, psychological and neurological disorder. He has also filed copy of his letter to DLSA dated 23.10.2021, by which he has surrendered cases assigned to him as DLSA advocate. However, the claim of Rs. 8 Crore on such account is excessive.

7. The Complainant has relied on the orders passed by Hon’ble National Commission in the matters of Aashna Roy vs Yogesh Deveshwar & Anr (CC No. 1619/2018, order date 25.04.2023), Manoj Madhusudan vs ICICI Bank (CC No. 129/2017, order date 31.08.2023) and Anil Milkhiram Goyal vs HSBC Ltd (CC No. 507/2016, order date 12.06.2023), in which Hon’ble National Commission has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 Crore, 25 Lakh and 15 Lakh respectively while justifying the claim as prayed by the Complainant herein. It is indeed a fact that Hon’ble National Commission has granted a large sum on account of compensation in these cases, but the compensation as claimed by Complainant in the case in hand is exorbitant even in the scale as granted by Hon’ble National Commission.

8. In the matter of ITC Ltd vs Aashna Roy [(2023) 5 SCC 655], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for claiming high compensation, the Complainant must produce material record in support of the claim. In this context, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“22. In the absence of any material with regard to her existing job, the emoluments received by her, any past, present or future assignments in modelling which the respondent was likely to get or even the interview letter for which the respondent alleges she had gone to the salon to make herself presentable, it would be difficult to quantify or assess the compensation under these heads. What could be quantified was compensation under the head of pain, suffering and trauma. However, amount of Rs 2 crores would be extremely excessive and disproportionate. This Court, therefore, is of the view that NCDRC fell in error by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs 2 crores without there being any material to substantiate and support the same or which could have helped NCDRC to quantify the compensation.”

9. In our opinion, the Complainant has not passed the test as prescribed buy Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITC Ltd case (supra) and the documents filed by him are not sufficient to substantiate his claim for claiming high compensation. We have already came to the conclusion that his affidavit for loss of income is exaggerated and unrealistic. His claim on account of other grounds is also excessive. Hence, in our opinion, the Complainant has not been able to justify his claims as prayed in this complaint. Accordingly, only on ground of excessive and exaggerated claim as prayed in this Complaint, we are not inclined to admit this complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. It is however, clarified that we have not made any observation on the merits of the case and if the Complainant choses to amend file a fresh complaint by suitably justifying his claim or by adjusting his claims, this order will not come in the way of the Complainant in filing a fresh complaint.

10. With above observation, this complaint is dismissed at admission stage itself. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the Complainant as per rules. Office is also directed to return all original documents filed by the Complainant, if any, after keeping copies of the same in the record. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

11. Order pronounced in open court.

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member