ORDER

25.10.2024

MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant purchased the mobile phone from OP1 official website www.oppo.com on 16 September 2021. It is stated that the complainant purchased Oppo A74 6gb ram + 128gb rom 5g mobile for Rs.17990/-. The complainant also got discount of flat 10% by using his Citibank credit card which was the bank offer for the complainant. Order number of the mobile phone was E1121091611020000442.
2. It is stated that the phone of the complainant was dispatched from OP3 on 17^th September 2021 via Blue dart with tracking id 89263176262. That the phone was delivered to the complainant on 18^th September 2021 in the evening. It is stated that when the complainant opened the package of the box received from OP3, the mobile box of OPPO A74 5g was with IMEI number 868896052859479 and IMEI number 868896052859461. It is stated that the complainant tried to switch on the phone after inserting the sim in the slot. It is stated that there was no battery backup in the phone. The battery was completely drained.
3. It is stated that when the complainant was unable to switch on the phone received from OP3, so the complainant kept the mobile phone on charge. That while charging the phone for about 30 minutes, the complainant was shocked to see that mobile phone was heating excessively like a hot iron plate. It is stated that the complainant immediately switched off the charger of the mobile and kept the mobile phone in a separate room due to the fear of explosion. The complainant and his family got afraid of the incidence as the mobile may explode as it was releasing excessive heat and was life threatening. It is stated that after a few hours, the complainant switched on the phone. The phone turned on and the complainant started surfing. While using the phone for around 5-6 mins the complainant felt that the temperature of the phone again started rising. Even the complainant felt it difficult to hold in hands.
4. It is stated that the complainant seeing this decided to turn off the phone immediately and removed the sim from the slot. By this incidence, the complainant and his family kept the mobile phone in the separate room as there was a fear of explosion in the mobile. The phone is lying unused at complainant’s home since the day of its purchase.
5. It is stated that the complainant and his family members got mentally disturbed from the aforesaid incidence and got panic that mobile might get exploded anytime. That on the same day on which the phone was received that is 18^th of September 2021, the phone created panic and anxiety at the complainants home. And the incidence may result in loss of life.
6. It is stated that on the very next morning that is, 19^th September, 2021, the complainant called the customer care number of OP2, that is, oppo mobile India Pvt. Ltd. on 18001032777. The complainant called the said number to update OP2 about the incidence and the mishappening that could happen which was life threatening and the panic and mental disturbances which was created and the house of the complainant. that the executive at the customer care instead of taking the immediate action on the incidence just guided the complainant to visit the service center to get the device repaired to which the complainant completely denied as, it could cause mishap anytime and the complainant and his family was not in the favour to get such an explosive bomb repaired and they just wanted to return the same.
7. It is stated that thereafter the complainant contacted the OP on several times but OP did not pay any heed to the grievance of complainant. It is therefore, the complainant is before this commission seeking a direction to OP to refund the price of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.17,999/- with cost interest and compensation.
8. It is stated that when OP failed to resolve the grievance of complainant complainant was forced to purchase another mobile phone, therefore, complainant purchased Samsung galaxy mobile phone for a sum of Rs.18,698/-.
9. Notice was issued to the OPs however despite due service OPs failed to file appear or file their WS within statutory period, therefore, proceeded ex parte vide order dated 17.08.2022.
10. Complainant filed ex parte evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the allegations made in the complaint. Complainant has relied upon tax invoice dated 16.09.2021 in favour of some Kanika Tandon Ex.CW1/1, screenshot of complainant Tweeter Handle Ex.CW1/2, tax invoice dated 19.09.2021 issued by Infinity Retailed Ltd in favour of complainant for purchase of another mobile phone Samsung galaxy, email dated 20.09.2021 addressed by complainant to OP, email dated 21.09.2021 addressed by complainant to OP.
11. We have perused the record available with us and heard complainant in person.
12. Before adverting to the disposal of the present complaint case, let us see the relevant provision under C.P Act, 2019 as to who is the consumer:

As per Section 2 (7) of C.P Act, 2019 consumer means any person who:

i)   buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised , or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose” or

ii)  [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of first mentioned persons [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].

13. Before coming to the merits of the case it is pertinent to mention here that invoice appended with the complaint dated 16.09.2021 is in favour of one Kanika Tandon and not in favour of complainant, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that since complainant named Piyush Tandon had not purchased the mobile in question by the OP. Therefore, complainant is not a consumer in the present case. Though complainant has filed an authority letter dated 31.03.2023 which reads as under:

LETTER OF AUTHORITY

I, Piyush Tandon, the complainant in the CC/441/2021 do hereby authorize Ms. Kanika Tandon R/o AD58A Power Appartment, Pitampura, Delhi 110034 as my authorized representative to represent me in above noted case/complaint and to sign and file complainant evidence and inspect any document, contest or compromise the case/complaint on my behalf, to seek adjournments, if necessary to sign and file complainant evidence or to do any other act conducive to my interest till this case is finally disposed off or this authorization is revoked by me or become unenforceable. I on behalf of my concern, hereby promise that I will be fully legally bound by the act of above noted authority so far as this case/complaint is concerned.

Place: New Delhi

Dated: 31.03.2023

Complainant’s signature                         Authorized person Signature

14. The above noted authority letter has been issued by complainant Piyush Tandon in favour of actual purchaser of the mobile phone in question i.e Ms. Kanika Tandon. Therefore, by this letter of authority complainant has authorized the actual purchaser to contest her case. However, there is no authority by the actual purchaser to anyone, therefore, the above authority letter is void.
15. Admittedly, in the present complaint case the services of OP was hired by Ms. Kanika Tandon. The invoice regarding the payment of handset in question was  issued in the name of Ms. Kanika Tandon and the present complaint case was filed by one Sh. Piyush Tandon, who has no Locus Standi to file the present complaint.
16. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as he himself has not availed the services of OP. The complainant in the present complaint therefore  does not fall within the definition of consumer as define in the Section 2 (7) of CP Act, 2019 and is not a consumer, we therefore, find no merits in the complaint,  same is hereby dismissed.
17. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  25.10.2024.

      SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                              RAJESH

            PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                       MEMBER