Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/189/2022

Shikha Saxena - Complainant(s)

Versus

OnePlus Technology India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pulkit Jain

03 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/189/2022
Date of Institution	:	11/02/2022
Date of Decision	:	03/01/2024

 

Shikha Saxena W/o Sh.Anil Saxena, R/o #1058, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. OnePlus Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Hira Building, Municipal No. New 213, Ward No.76, Brigade Road, Richmond Town Bangalore, Karnataka-560001.
2. OnePlus Technology India, Authorized Service Centre Plot No.24, Shop No.1, Berkeley Square, Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh-160002.
3. Reliance Retail Ltd., SCO No.101, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh-160035.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Pulkit Jain, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Dixit Garg, Advocate for OP No.1 & 2.
	:	Sh.Rajat Pabbi, Advocate proxy for Sh.Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for OP No.3.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone, from OP No.3 for Rs.40,948/- dated 15.07.2020 (Ex.C-1). On 26.07.2021 as the battery of mobile phone was about to run out, therefore, it was placed for charging, then after few minutes, the complainant found that there is a big bulge in the battery, resultantly the body of the phone got bent and back glass panel of the mobile phone got shattered (Ex.C-2 colly). Thereafter, the complainant approached the service center of the OP. It was an utter shock to the complainant that the service center representative quoted Rs.28,000/- for repairing the phone. The complainant asked the reason of unusual damage of the phone. The representative gave the reason that the phone must have been dropped from the hands to the ground. This explanation given by the representative of the OP was completely illogical and unreasonable. The battery bulge can never be done by falling off of the phone and hitting the ground. The conversation between the complainant and the OP was started on 26.07.2021 and it got end unsatisfyingly on 05.09.2021, this certainly proves that the OP was dill-dallying the issue, just to get itself absolved from their liability. Despite of the several efforts made by the complainant no satisfactory response has been received from the side of OPs nor any solution is provided to the complainant till date. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 & 2 contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the complainant visited the service center and the technician conducted a deep inspection and after that it was found damage in the device, needed to replace the motherboard alogwith the back cover. Service center shared an estimate for the mainboard and back cover, but the complainant was not ready for the same. It was also informed to the complainant that the product was in damaged condition and cannot be repaired as it was damaged by an external force, also, a major dent was found in the body and there is no manufacturing defect. Hence, the product can neither be replaced nor refund could be made although the product was under the warranty because the damage was caused due to external force. However, the warranty does not apply when the damage was caused by an external force. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1 & 2.
3.     OP No.3 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the OP No.3 is only a retailer and has no role to play in refund of the amount, replacement or rectification of defects in mobile phone from OP No3. It is further stated that in case of any manufacturing defect in the product purchased by the complainant, its manufacturer of OnePlus Technology India Pvt. Ltd., (OP No.1 & 2) alone shall be liable and responsible and the answering OP No.3 cannot be held liable for it. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.3.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     It is evident from Annexure C-1, that the complainant purchased one hand set manufactured by OP No.1 & 2 after spending an amount of Rs.40,948/- from OP No.3. As per the case of the complainant on 26.07.2021 the battery of the mobile phone ran out and hence, when it was charged thereafter a big bulge appeared in the battery, resultantly the battery of the handset got bent and back glass panel of the mobile got shattered. It has been alleged by the complainant that for the aforesaid repair, the OPs gave a quotation of Rs.28,000/- for the necessary repairs. The complainant requested the OPs numbers of time for the replacement or the refund which was denied by the OPs. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
8.     Perusal of the reply filed by the OP No.1 & 2 reveals that product was within the warranty period, but as the damage was caused due to external force, the product cannot be replaced or refunded. Resultantly, the complainant had to pay the amount of Rs.28,000/- for the replacement of the motherboard alongwith back cover for necessary repairs. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
9.     After going through the documents on record, it is admitted fact of OP No.1 & 2 that handset was under warranty and motherboard was to be replaced for the repairs. On the other hand, contrary to the same, the OP No.1 & 2 have taken a stand to resolve the matter amicably. But as per the version of the OP No.1 & 2 no such amicable resolution was ever offered to the complainant. Even during the proceedings of the present case, no such effort was made by the OPs to settle the matter amicably. Hence, the act of OP No.1 & 2 for non-providing after sale services proves deficiency in services on their part and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.
10.     In our opinion as the complainant used the handset in question for months without any fault therefore, it cannot be concluded that it was suffering from any manufacturing defect. The act of OPs for not giving any solution to the genuine grievance of the complainant, not placing on record the expert report regarding physical damage by the complainant and forcing the complainant to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation proves deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.        
11.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her.
2. to pay ₹7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

         The complainant shall, however, return the handset in question to the OPs.

12.     This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
13.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
14.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
03/01/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member