The brief facts of the complainant case, is that, the complainant has purchased one mobile phone amounting to Rs. 18,999/- made by the OPPO Mobiles India Private Limited, Model No. ONEPLUS NORD CE 2 Lite (6+128)GB 866861065451633 which was purchased from M/S Eureka Computer, Mahakal Dham, Alipurduar Court on 01/10/2022. At the time of purchase the O.Ps assured the complainant one year warrantee on the said hand set since the date of purchase. That after complainant started to use the said mobile hand set unfortunately after 2/3 days of purchasing the said mobile hand set was not opening as usual and given troubles to use it. Then after 5/6 days of purchasing the said mobile set totally stopped. Then the complainant went to the shop where from he purchased and they suggested to send the said hand set to the company service centre at Siliguri. As per guidance of the said shop the complainant had taken the said mobile hand set to the O.P No. 3 with all the complaint which he fills after purchase the mobile hand set and the O.P No. 3 received it on 26/10/2022 and on same date it was returned to the complainant with a remarks “RWR” and stated that one board inside the said mobile hand set is broken, maybe it is manufacturing defect, but it is not repairable and will never open. Complainant had contacted with the O.P Nos. 1 & 2 on several times but ultimately on 05/12/2022 they have denied to change the said mobile hand set or to repair it. Due to whimsical acts of the O.Ps the complainant passing his days mental agony and harassment and also suffering monitory loss. The complainant has claimed Rs. 18,999/- with interest from the O.Ps and also claim Rs. 1,00,000/- for compensation for his mental agony and sufferings and also claim Rs. 20,000/- for his litigation costs.
In this case O.P Nos. 1 and 2 appeared on 16/01/2023 and O.P No. 3 appeared on 10/02/2023. Thereafter, O.P No. 2 has filed his written version but O.P Nos. 1 and 3 did not turn up to contest the case.
According to O.P No. 2 the case is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties as because M/S Eureka Computer that is the shop from which the mobile was purchased, is not made party in this case. The O.P No. 2 has denied all the material allegations made by the complainant. He stated that the distributor is not responsible for any defect if any defect is traced out then the manufacturer will be responsible for repayment. He has prayed for dismissal of the case.
In this context, the following issues are necessarily come up for the proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s. 2(7)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ?
- Has this Commission jurisdiction to try the instant case?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Considering the nature and character of the case all these points are interlinked to each other as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.
Point Nos. 1 & 2:- The complainant has purchased a mobile phone of O.P No. 1 by making payment and according to the C.P. Act he is the consumer and according to the law the complainant is a consumer and he is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and therefore, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try this case as per section 34(d) of the C.P. Act, 2019.
Point No. 3 & 4: The complainant has purchased a mobile phone which is the product of O.P No. 1 from M/S Eureka Computer who is the authorized seller of O.P No. 1 at Alipurduar on 01/10/2022 and the value of that product was Rs.18,999/- including the GST (Annexure – A) is the document to prove the same. The allegation is that after purchase of the said product it was not opening as usual after two-three days and trouble started and within five-six days of purchase the mobile phone was totally stopped. He went to the shop where he purchased and he was asked to go to the company service centre at Siliguri as it was within the warranty cover of one year. Thereafter, the complainant took his mobile phone to the office of O.P No. 3 on 26/10/2022 for servicing of the same as it was not working. O.P No. 3 being the authorized servicing centre of O.P No. 1 after inspection of the entire phone return it to the complainant with a remarks ‘RWR’ and stated that one board inside the said mobile phone is broken may be it is manufacturing defect but it is not repairable and will never open (Annexure – D) is the document issued by O.P No. 3 regarding service of the said mobile phone. Thereafter the complainant contacted with O.P Nos. 1 and 2 as the O.P No. 1 is the manufacturer and O.P No. 2 is the dealer of the said mobile phone but ultimately on 05/12/2022 they denied the change of the said mobile phone or to repair it. Due to the act of the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 the complainant faced great financial loss and he also faced severer harassment, mental agony and suffering. He has claimed the purchase amount along with interest and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for his mental agony and sufferings and Rs. 20,000/- for litigation cost.
O.P No. 2 has contested this case but he pressed only on nonjoinder of necessary parties and according to him the shop where from he purchased the phone he is the necessary parties. That apart practically O.P No. 2 did not deny anything and stated that he is the dealer the manufacture is O.P No. 1 and all liability goes to O.P No. 1. After considering the evidence and argument of the parties we find that admittedly the complainant has purchased the mobile phone from M/S Eureka Computer an amount of Rs. 18,999/-. It is the fact that the complainant did not implead M/S Eureka Computer is the party in this case but at the same time we find that he has no claim against M/S Eureka Computer as because the product was manufactured by O.P No. 1 and it was in the warranty period. The O.P No. 1 is liable to return the amount. We also find that after purchased of the said mobile phone within five-six days it was stopped operating and as it was within the warranty period. The complainant went to the authorized service centre of O.P No. 1 for proper servicing and repairing (Annexure – D) is the document to prove the same. But it was not repaired due to its manufacturing defects. We also find that the complainant informed the matter to the O.P No. 1 but no reply received. There is a manufacturing defect which was detected in the period of warranty i.e. within five-six days of purchased and the complainant informed the matter to the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 but O.P No. 1 did not pay any heed to their information neither it was repaired nor replaced nor refund of money to the complainant. Complainant is entitled to get back the purchased amount from the O.P No. 1 along with interest. O.P No. 2 being the authorized dealer has the liability to pursue to the O.P No. 1 but he did not do so. We also find that due to the defect of this mobile phone purchased by the complainant within five-six days he suffers mental agony and harassment which can be compensated by an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from O.P No. 1. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount for litigation cost as the lawyer was provided to him to conduct the case from Legal Aid Service.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-
ORDERED
that the instant case be and same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. The complainant do get an award amounting to Rs. 18,999/-/- (Eighteen Thousands Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine) for his mobile phone which is paid at the time of purchased along with interest of 6% Per Annum from the date of filing of this case to till the realization of the amount. The complainant is also do get an award amounting to Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousands) as compensation for his harassment, mental agony and sufferings; total decreetal amount of Rs. 68,999/-(Sixty-Eight Thousands Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine) excluding interest. The O.P No. 1 is liable to pay the said award amount and he is hereby directed to comply this order within 30 days from this day, failing which legal action will be taken against him. O.P No. 2 is the authorized dealer of the O.P No. 1 and the O.P No. 3 is the service centre so they are not liable to pay the award amount as because the purchased money was deposited to the account of the O.P No. 1.
Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or by hand forthwith for information and necessary action.
Dictated & Corrected by me
