Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/86/2018

PARMEET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

OPPO INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

GAUTAM VAID

22 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No                402/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :    17-01-2018

 Date of Decision      :      23-04-2018

 

Parmeet Singh,

S/O S.Manjeet Singh,

R/O Akali Kour Singh Nagar,

Digiana,Jammu.

                                                                                                                        Complainant

               V/S

1.Oppo India through its Managing Director

  Registered Office 2^nd Floor Block 1Sector 49,

  Vatika Business Park,Sohna Road Gurgaon,

  Haryana-122001,India.

2.Authorised Service Centre of Oppo,

  Exclusive Service Centre by pace tel systems

  h-44 a-second floor, small plots, Gandhi Nagar,

 Jammu-180004.

                                                                                                                                        Opposite parties

 CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary              (Distt.& Sessions Judge)     President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                              Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                                           Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer Protection Act 1987.

                                                         

 M/S Gautam Vaid,Advocate for complainant, present.

Nemo  for Ops.

                                                                   

                                                                    ORDER

                         Grievance of complainant as disclosed in the complaint is that OP1 is the authorized manufacturer of handset and OP2 is the authorized service centre of oppo handset and the complainant purchased a mobile model No.A57 in Gold Colour bearing IMEI No.863711033109198,863711033109180  on,11-02-2017 for sale consideration of Rs.15,000/-,copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-A). According to complainant within three months of its purchase, the handset developed problem of over heating,app crashing,quick battery drainage, sudden switch off and speaker problem while making calls.  Allegation of complainant is that on on,15-05-2017 the handset suddenly started heating  excessively and ultimately got switched off on its own and despite repeated efforts could not restart. Complainant further submitted that he approached OP2 on,16-05-2017 with the hope of getting his problem solved, but OP2 refused to repair the handset for the reason that defects are not manufacturing, but after heated exchange of words ultimately realized his fault and retained the handset for repair and told that he will repair it within 2 or 3 hours. That after this complainant brought the handset back with the hope that now the handset work properly and efficiently as promised by OP2 and the handset worked properly for some time, but again on,01-12-2017 the handset started showing problems of auto restart  while making calls, speaker problem and most of the time call not received because touch not working properly, hanging problem and battery drainage. Complainant further submitted that  he repeatedly approached OP2 for rectification of defects, but it failed to remove the defects, and same according to complainant were manufacturing in nature, therefore, in the final analysis, for deficiency in service, complainant prays for refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs.15,000/-  and in addition, prays for compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.

Notices were sent to the OPs alongwith copies of complaint through registered covers with acknowledgment due,however,,OPs did not choose to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period provided under the Act, so their right to file written version was closed vide order dated 07-03-2018 and the complainant was ordered to produce evidence by way of affidavits in support of the complaint.

           Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavit of Angraz Singh. The complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice.

               We have perused the case file and also heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

                   To be brief, grievance of complainant is that he purchased a Oppo A57 in Gold colour  from OPs for sale consideration of Rs.15,000/-on,11-02-2017, but within warranty period, same was marred by defects. Further allegation of complainant is that despite he approached OP2,but OP2 failed to rectify the defects, which were manufacturing defects in nature.

                       The complainant in his own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Angraz Singh have supported the averments of the complaint. There is no evidence on record produced by other side to rebut the case of complainant. So from perusal of complaint, documentary and other evidence produced by the complainant, it appears that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case as narrated by him in the complaint. The complaint is fully supported by his own duly sworn affidavit and affidavit of Angraz Singh,so, in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of the evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments of complaint.

                      This is a case of deficiency in service. The OPs despite of service of notice sent by the Forum through registered cover have not taken any action to represent their case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by OPs in this complaint and there is also no evidence to rebut the case of complainant. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1987, which provides that in a case where the OPs omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the OP omits or fails to taken any action to represent its case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.                                     

                         Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and Ops are directed to pay  Rs.15,000/-(i.e. cost of handset) to complainant, who shall return the defective handset alongwith accessories to OPs. Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-.The OPs shall comply the order within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to parties, free of costs. The complaint is accordingly, disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                                 Khalil Choudhary

                                                                                 (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                                       President

Announced                                                            District Consumer Forum

23-04-2018                                                                   Jammu.

Agreed by 

                                                             

  Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                              

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member