Delhi

North East

CC/238/2016

RAHUL RAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

OPPO AUTHORISED SERVICE PARTNER - Opp.Party(s)

15 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.238/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Rahul Rai S/o Vind Vasini Rai, H.No. E-2/652, Gali No. 7A, 4th Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110090	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.       3.       4.	Oppo Authorized Service Partner C-21, 2nd Floor, Near Bus Stand, Bhajanpura, New Delhi-110053   Vipul Telecom 19, New Market Timarpur, Delhi- 110054   Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. F 16, Okhla Industrial Area Phase I New Delhi-110020   Rising Stars Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. 380 Belerica Road, Sri City, Siddam Agrharam Village, Varadiahpalem Mandal-517541, Chittor District, Andhra Pradesh	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:

05.09.2016 23.11.2022 15.02.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

                                                                 ORDER

     Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 23.02.2016 the complainant had purchased a OPPO mobile phone manufactures by the Opposite Party No. 3 for gifting the same to his sister on her  birthday for a sum of Rs. 15,500/- from the Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. M/s Vipul Telecom. The said mobile phone started having issues with its screen brightness problem, thereafter, the complainant along with his sister approached to the Opposite Party No. 2 with the said problem. The Opposite Party No. 2 denied that the said mobile phone has any issues and requested the complainant updated the mobile phone. When sister of the complainant updated the said mobile phone and problem was not resolved rather the same aggravated with

every passing day, sister of the complainant visited Opposite Party No. 1 with copy of warranty card for getting the mobile phone repaired. The officials of the Opposite Party No. 1 inspected said mobile phone along with the warranty card/documents, officials of the Opposite Party No. 1 stated that the said mobile phone is damaged without inspecting the same and informed the sister of the complainant that sum of Rs. 6/7 thousand would be spent on repairing the said mobile phone. Sister of the complainant was even advice to purchase new mobile phone instead of getting the same repaired. When sister of the complainant stated that there are some brightness issues, why should purchase the new mobile phone, the service centre official without authorization opened the mobile phone after which the motherboard, camera, display everything got damaged, the official of the Opposite Party No. 1 told to the complainant’s sister that the mobile phone is having all these problem. When sister of the complainant enquired as to how a phone with so many issues was working the official of the Opposite Party No. 1 failed to give any concrete reply and consequently sister of the complainant asked said official to call his superior, the official of the Opposite Party No. 1 stated that he is the senior most official and there is no other

•  

Opposite Party No. 3 stated that nothing could be done as said official is a technician. When sister of the complainant asked the official of the Opposite party to put her mobile phone back to the condition in which was before being brought to the service centre and handed over the token the official of the Opposite Party No. 1 refused to do so and in a violent/forceful voice asked sister of the complainant. The Opposite Parties has failed to provide any service to as he have assured to the complainant and it is a crystal clear of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The complainant has prayed to refund the cost of mobile phone i.e. 15,500/-, Rs. 5,000/- on account of litigation charges and Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental harassment.

2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and opposite
   Party No. 4 to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 4 were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 17.02.2017 and 08.07.2022.
3. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3 but they filed the written statement, evidence and written arguments before the pandemic period. And after the pandemic period they did not contest the case. Hence, Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.07.2022.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 3 (Ex-Parte)

4. Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3 have contested the case and filed their written statement. The case of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3 is that the service centre personnel of the answering Opposite Party at the time of the receipt of the handset, has appraised the complainant that there has been a liquid damage to the handset which stands for void warranty, therefore, it can be repaired only by making payment of the necessary, incidental costs. It is further submitted that in reply to contents of notice, it is submitted by the Oppposite Party that at the time of visit of complainant to the service center wherein the status of the warranty was marked as “ Void” due to liquid damage to the handset. It is completely denied the averment of complainant that there was problem with respect to the brightness.

 

Rejoinder to the Written Statement of Opposite Party No.1 & 3

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein Complainant has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1 & 3 (Ex-Parte)

7. In order to prove its case Opposite Parties has filed affidavit of Shri Anshuman Aggarwal S/o Mr. Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, authorized representative of OPPO Mobiles (India) Private Limited having its registered office at F-16, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I New Delhi 110020, wherein the opposite parties supported the averments made in its written statement.
8. It is also submitted that Ms. Sushma Rai, Sister of the complainant had visited our authorized service centre situated at C-21, 2^nd floor, Near Bus Stand, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053 on 31^st August, 2016 with her mobile handset OPPO F 1 bearing IMEI No. 869124025402171 and 869124025402163. She had delivered the handset to one of our service representative Mr. Pramod Paswan stating some brightness issue in the handset. By the general examination of handset, our service representative found that the said handset was not working properly. Afterwards, he had opened the Mobile handset for further examinations and it was found that the entire motherboard was short and the Liquid

Contact Indicator indicates a liquid damage in the Mobile handset. A liquid contact indicator is a small indicator that turns from white into another colour, typically red, after contact with water. Those indicators are small stickers that are placed on several points within electronic devices like laptops and smartphones. In case of a defective device, service personnel can check whether the device might have suffered from contact with water. After contact with water, or other liquids, the device is not covered by warranty. Liquid contact indicators are also known by other names such as water damage tape, water damage sticker, water contact indicator tape, liquid submersion indicatory. The liquid contact indicators are manufactures by third parties for the smartphone and electronic device makers. It is further submitted that our service representative mentioned to Ms. Sushma Rai about the said liquid contact indicator and states that due to liquid damage the warranty has become void. Therefore, she will have to pay to repair the Mobile handset and the approximate cost of mobile repair was Rs. 10,000/-.Sister of the complainant denied that there is a liquid damage in the Mobile handset and continuously asking service representative to repair the Mobile handset free of cost. Since the warranty became void as per the liquid contact indicator of the Mobile handset, our service representative was unable to repair the Mobile handset for free of cost.

Arguments & Conclusion

9. We have heard the Complainant and we have also perused the file.  The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Mobile Phone from the Opposite Party No. 3 on 23.02.2016 for a sum of Rs. 15,500/-. The said mobile phone started having problem of brightness in the screen. The complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 2 with the said problem and the Opposite Party No. 2 denied that the said mobile phone had not any issues and requested the complainant updated the mobile phone. As per the complainant even after updating the mobile phone, the problem was not resolved. So he again approached the Opposite Party No. 1 with the copy of warranty card for repairing the mobile phone. In spite of approaching the Opposite Parties time and again the Opposite Parties failed to provide any service which was

assured to the complainant and Opposite Parties did not rectify the problem in the phone in spite of the said phone was within the warranty period. The case of the Opposite Party No 1 & Opposite party No. 3 is that since there was liquid damage to the handset which made warranty void therefore it cannot be repaired without making necessary payment by the complainant.

10. It is an admitted fact that the complainant’s phone was having problem within the warranty period of the phone and Opposite Parties failed to render the service as assured by them during the warranty period. As far as, liquid damage of the handset, Opposite Parties failed to produce any job card or any evidence regarding liquid damage of the said phone found by their technician.
11. In view of the above and Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial Legislation for the rescue of the consumer, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No. 1, Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4 are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,500/- (cost of the phone) jointly or severally to the complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No. 1, Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4 are also directed to pay an amount

of Rs. 5,000/- jointly or severally to the complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation charges along with interest @ 6 % p.a from the date of this order till recovery.

12. Order announced on 15.02.2023.

     Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President