Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/101/2018

VISHAL SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

OPPO INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

INPERSON

21 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File  No.:                444/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :  09-02-2018

 Date of Decision      :    09-11-2018

Vishal Sharma,

S/O M.L.Sharma,

R/O H.No.43 Bakshi Nagar,

Jammu.

                                                                                                                                Complainant

                           V/S

1.Oppo.India Pvt.Ltd.

  Through its Managing Director,

2^nd Floor,Block 1,Vatika Business Park,

Sohna Road,Sector 49 Gurugram-Haryana-122001.

2.Nikhil Traders Opp.PNB Kachi Chowni,Jammu.

3.Parcetel  Systems Pvt.Ltd.(Authorised Service Centre)

  A-44 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.

      

Complainant, in person,present.

Nemo for OPs.

 

 

                                              ORDER

                          Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that; complainant is said to have purchased an Oppo Mobile phone  bearing Model No.Opp F3 bearing IMEI No.865244039876576 from OP2)on,20-06-2017, against sale consideration of Rs.18,952/-. According to complainant, within warranty period, handset marred by defects, which were manufacturing in nature and were erupted during currency of warranty,therefore,complainant said to have approached service centre (For short OP3), where the technical staff handed over the handset by updating the same with an assurance that the defects have been removed and the handset will work properly, but again after few months the handset started showing same defects. Complainant further submitted that with the passage of time the problems in the handset started multiplying as alongwith over heating, slow processing & hanging and the handset also starte3d showing problems like frequent restarting and screen going blank, complainant again approached OP3,but every time the service centre returned the handset by updating the same and not only this, he was provided excuse that the handset is old model, as such these types of problems are common which cannot be rectified and furthermore the service centre employees do not have authority to test the handset by any other method except watching you tube over. Complainant further submitted that he repeatedly approached Ops for repair of the handset , but the Ops did not pay any heed to his request,therefore,in the final analysis, for deficiency in service, complainant prays for refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs.18,952/- and in addition, prays for compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.30,000/-

                  Notices alongwith copies of complaint were sent to opposite parties through registered cover but despite lapse of statutory period, the opposite parties have not taken any action 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. Thereafter the right of the opposite parties to file reply was closed vide order dated,18-04-2018 and complainant was directed to adduce evidence by way of affidavits in support of his case.

                              Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit. Complainant has placed on record, retail invoice.

                    We have perused case file and heard L/C appearing for the complainant at length.

                          Briefly stated case of complainant is that he is said to have purchased an Oppo Mobile phone  bearing Model No.Opp F3 bearing IMEI No.865244039876576 from OP2,on,20-06-2017, against sale consideration of Rs.18,952/. According to complainant, within warranty period, handset marred by defects, which were manufacturing in nature and were erupted during currency of warranty,therefore,complainant said to have approached service centre (i.e. OP3), where the technical staff handed over the handset by updating the same with an assurance that the defects have been removed and the handset will work properly, but again after few months the handset started showing same defects. Complainant further submitted that with the passage of time the problems in the handset started multiplying as alongwith over heating, slow processing & hanging and the handset also started showing problems like frequent restarting and screen going blank, complainant again approached OP3,but every time the service centre returned the handset by updating the same and not only this, he was provided excuse that the handset is old model, as such these types of problems are common which cannot be rectified and furthermore the service centre employees do not have authority to test the handset by any other method except watching you tube over. Complainant further submitted that he repeatedly approached Ops for repair of the handset , but the Ops did not pay any heed to his request,

                 The complainant in his own affidavit has 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 the affidavit of complainant, in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of the evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments of complainant in complaint. This is a case of deficiency in service. The Ops despite service of notice, sent by the Forum through registered cover have not taken any action to represent the case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by the Ops in this complaint and there is also no evidence in rebuttal. 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 OPs omits or fails to taken any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                  In addition complainant has also supported the averments contained in the complaint by duly sworn his own affidavit which is corroborative of the facts contained in the complaint. From perusal of averments contained in the complaint, affidavit of complainant and documents placed on record, it is manifestly clear that from the very beginning, handset started giving trouble,whereas,despite repeated requests to Ops the handset could not be made workable, therefore, in our opinion once high-end hand set purchased by complainant, obviously, without any rhyme or reason, question of grouse, regarding fault of handset would not have arisen, instead of making use of it. Rather we think Ops should have redressed grievance of complainant, who spent such huge money and banked upon such multinational brand, but it seems that instead of well coming the consumer,Ops have chosen to multiply  suffering, which of course is unwarranted and unexpected from such brand. Therefore, in the light of unrebutted averments contained in the complaint and documents on record, we are of the opinion that complainant successfully made out a case of deficiency in service by Ops.

                      Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and Ops are directed to replace the handset or in the alternative refund the cost of handset to the tune of Rs.18,952/- to the complainant, who shall return the mobile phone, 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.5,000/-, respectively. The Ops shall comply the order, within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties, as per requirement of the Act. 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

    09-11-2018                                                                       Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

                                                                            

Ms.Vijay Angral                                              

 Member    

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member