Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/420/2015

Sanjay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oppo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. GauravBhardwaj Adv.

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	420/2015
Date of Institution	:	05.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	30/03/2016

 

                                               

                                                         

Sanjay Kumar r/o # 328, Ward No.10, R.D.Nagar, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.      Oppo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., D-13/1, Town-III, New Delhi-110009 through its Director.

 

2.      AKS Telecom, SCO No.9, First Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

3.      Pioneer Traders, SCO No.1038, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant

                   Sh.Rajat Nakra, Advocate for OP No.1.

                   OPs No.2 & 3 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone make Oppo X9006 from OP No.3 vide invoice dated 02.08.2014 for Rs.31,990/- (Annexure C-1), having warranty of one year. He also paid an extra amount of Rs.2499/- towards the insurance of the mobile phone in question. The mobile phone started giving problem of camera in January, February and March and the same was repaired but the OPs did not issue any job sheet for the same.  The mobile phone again started giving problems and, therefore, the same was landed with OP No.2 on 18.05.2015, 29.05.2015 and 22.07.2015 vide job sheets (Annexures C-2 to C-4) respectively. It has further been averred that he was assured by OPs No.2 and 3 that the mobile phone shall be replaced with a brand new within 1-2 days as the same was seemed to be suffering from some manufacturing defect. However, after two days he visited the OP No.2 but it started making lame excuses. It has further been averred that   the mobile phone in question was repaired five times in six months and now the same is lying with OP No.2 since 22.07.2015 and as such he could not use the same. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           OP No.1 filed its written statement and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, it has been pleaded that the complainant visited the service center on 18.05.2015 with the problem in camera and the same was rectified. Thereafter after a couple of months, he visited the service center on 22.07.2015 with the problem of auto restart and the same was repaired and he was informed to pick up the same but he informed the service center that he was not willing to pick up  the said mobile phone and wanted its replacement. It has further been pleaded that till date the complainant never approached the service center and got his phone checked or picked up from the premises of the service center. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           Despite due service through registered post, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
4.           We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.           The case of the complainant is that the mobile phone is suffering from manufacturing defect and the same has been lying with the service center since 22.07.2015 but the same has not been replaced/returned till date.
6.           On the other hand, the case of OP No.1 is that the mobile phone in question is not suffering from any manufacturing defect and the same has been repaired and the complainant was intimated accordingly but he failed to turn to pick up the same.
7.           A close scrutiny of job sheet dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure C-4) reveals that the complainant approached the service center with the problem of auto switch off/on only. It has specifically been pleaded in the written statement by OP No.1 that the said problem in the mobile phone has already been rectified and the complaint was informed to pick up the same but he failed to collect the same from the service center.  However, the plea of OP No.1 that the service center informed the complainant to collect the same cannot be believed in the absence of any documentary evidence to this effect. However, it is admitted fact between the parties that the mobile phone is lying with the service center of OP No.1 since 22.07.2015 and as such the complainant has certainly suffered some mental agony and harassment because he could not use the mobile phone after spending hefty amount on its purchase and as such the OPs are certainly liable to compensate him.
8.           Besides this, the law on the point is well settled that if the defect(s) can be set right by repair/replacement of part(s), there is no need to replace the machine as a whole.  As such, we are of the view that the complainant cannot be granted the relief of replacement of the mobile handset at this stage especially when the mobile phone has already been repaired as averred in the written statement and affidavit filed on behalf of OP No.1.
9.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are to handover the repaired mobile handset to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as lump sum compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.       This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment.
10.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced                                                                                       Sd/-

30/03/2016                                                                  (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER