DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 163 of 2021

 

Smt. Rekha Debnath,

W.O.- Dilip Debnath,

R.O.-A.D. Nagar, M. B. Tilla Bazar, 

P.O.-A.D. Nagar, P.S.-A.D. Nagar, Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala….......................................................................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. OPPO MOBILES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,

Address : 5th Floor, Tower B Building No.8, DLF,

Cyber City, Gurgaon, India-122002. 

 

2.  OPPO AGARTALA,

Authorized Oppo Service Centre,

Address: Jackson Gate, Near Maharani Tulshibati Girls School, Agartala, 

P.S.-West Agartala, Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001.

 

3. GADGET'S WORLD 

161, H.G.B. Road, Melarmath, 

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist.-West Tripura..................................................................................... Opposite Parties.

 

  __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Sampad Choudhury,

  Advocate.

 

For the O.Ps. : None appeared – Ex-parte. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 02 /11/2022.

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Smt. Rekha Debnath, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant on 23/04/2021 went to the shop of the O.P. No.3 desiring the purchase of Smartphone of Oppo Company having its Model No.F19 6/128 GB from O.P. No.3 on payment of Rs.18,990/- only. At the time of purchase the O.P. also issued cash memo dated 23/04/2021 and warranty card in favour of the Complainant. After purchase of Smartphone the Complainant used the Smartphone for an about 7/8 days and in between the Complainant noticed that her Smartphone's Battery is draining rapidly and also when she put her mobile in plugged condition for charging the said mobile sometimes does not show charging indication. The Complainant to solve this problem restored the setting of the Smartphone but no fruit full result came up. Thereafter, the Complainant approached to the store of O.P. No.2 i.e. Authorized Service Centre of Oppo Company(O.P. No.1) on 04/05/2021. Then the Authorized person of the O.P. No.2 advised the Complainant to wait for an hour and in the meantime they will update the operating software of the Smartphone. Accordingly, after about one and half hour the Authorized person of the O.P. No.2 handed over the Smartphone to the Complainant and also told that the problem of her Smartphone has been resolved. On 04/05/2021 the Complainant noticed that the problem of the Smartphone has been partly solved but regarding Charging Disorder the problem remains same for an about 3/4 months. Thereafter the Complainant immediately visited the store of O.P. No.2 for service of her Smartphone on 29/09/2021 but the attending staffs of the O.P. No.2 told that motherboard of her Smartphone is defective and the same cannot be repaired and also advised to contact with O.P. No.1 for replace of her Smartphone.  Hence, she filed the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for including compensation on the ground of deficiency of service.  

On admission of the complaint notices were issued upon the O.Ps. But the O.Ps.  after receiving the notice did not turn up and consequently the case was proceeded ex-parte against them vide order dated 03/06/2022 & 17/03/2022.

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

3. Complainant submitted her examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit and another witness. In this case the complainant produced 2 documents comprising 2 sheets under a Firisti dated 30/11/2021 and one Oppo mobile phone. The documents are namely photocopy of cash memo of GADGET'S WORLD  & Warranty Card. On identification the  documents are marked as Exhibit-I series and the Mobile phone is marked as Exhibit- M.O.-1.   

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    Based on the contentions raised by the Complainant in the pleadings and having regard to the evidence adduced by the complainant, the following points cropped up for determination:

      (I) Whether the O.Ps. has committed any deficiency of service towards the Complainant and have also indulged in unfair trade practices?

(II) Whether the complainant is entitled to get  compensation/relief as prayed for?

5.  ARGUMENT:-

Since it is an ex-parte proceeding, we only heard Mr. Sampad Choudhury, Learned Advocate appearing for the Complainant. Mr. Choudhury submitted that within warranty period mobile was found not functioning properly and when Complainant visited the service centre they also uttered that motherboard of Smartphone is defective and it can not be repaired and also advised to contact with the O.P. No.1 for replace for Smartphone but O.P. No.1 as well as O.P. No.3 did not change the mobile phone. He further submitted that having found no alternative. Complainant approached this Commission and also exhibited the documents including warranty card and the mobile phone. Learned Advocate further submitted that Complainant also adduced examination-in-chief on affidavit of two witness including Complainant and has been able to prove her complaint. It is submitted that O.P. Nos.1 & 3 are jointly & severally liable to change the mobile phone or in the alternative a refund the price of the mobile phone along with interest & compensation.   

5. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

Both points are taken-up together for convenience for decisions. 

Since it is an ex-parte proceeding, we have to see whether the Complainant has been able to prove her case by way of adducing sufficient evidence. 

In the instant case Complainant herself submitted examination-in-chief on affidavit and also one witness namely, Sri Animesh Debnath. In their examination-in-chief on affidavit stated that Complainant purchased one Smartphone of Oppo Company having Model No.F196/128 GB having Serial No.7c9119d5 and IMEI No.860427056456738 from O.P. No.3 on 23/04/2021 and by payment of Rs.18,990/-. At the time of purchase the O.P. No.3 issued cash memo dated 23/04/2021 and also warranty card in favour of the Complainant. After purchase of the Smartphone she used the Smartphone for an about 7/8 days and in between she noticed that her Smartphone's Battery is draining rapidly and also she put the mobile in plugged condition for charging the said mobile phone sometimes does not show charging indication. To solve this problem she contacted with the O.P. No.3 who advised her to visit the Authorized person of the O.P. No.2. It is further stated that the Complainant visited the service centre on 04/05/2021 and found that the charged disorder problem remains same. On 29/09/2021 the Complainant again visited the service centre and the staff of the service centre told her that motherboard of the Smartphone is defective and it can not be repaired. 

6. The cash memo & warranty card has been exhibited and the concerned mobile phone also produced and exhibited. From the cash memo it is found that date of purchase was on 23/04/2021 and warranty card also speaks that the warranty period for the product is applicable during the term of 12 months from the date of the purchase. We find that the mobile phone was found defective within the period of warranty and O.P. did not replace the mobile phone after they were approached. Moreover, O.Ps. after receiving the notice did not turn up and contest the case. So, we have no alternative but to accept the Complainant's oral evidence as well as documentary evidence and the material object.  

On appreciation of the Complainant's evidence we found that Complainant has been able to prove her complaint and it is found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Nos.1 & 3 and they are liable to either replace the concerned mobile or to refund the purchased money i.e. Rs.18,990/-. Complainant is also entitled to get compensation for harassment and mental agony. Accordingly, we direct the O.P. Nos.1 & 3 who are jointly and severally liable to replace the concerned mobile phone(Exhibited- M.O.-1) or in the alternative to refund the purchased money amounting to Rs.18,990/- and also an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost i.e. in total O.P. Nos.1 & 3 jointly and severally will pay Rs.28,990/-(Rs.18,990/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) to the Complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment, failing which the entire amount will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full with effect from the date of judgment.

          Complaint is partly allowed. 

Office is directed to supply a certified copy of the judgment to the Complainant free of cost and Complainant is directed to send a certified copy of the judgment to the address of the O.P. Nos-1 & 3 by registered post for their information and compliance within 07 days after receiving the certified copy of the judgment. 

 

 

Announced.

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.