DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII(SW)

[GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI]

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SHAKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO. CC/357/2021

                                                                                       Date of Institution  : 11.10.2021

            Order reserved on : 25.04.2023

               Date of Order : 10.05.2023          

     In the matter of: 

     Ravinder Pal Singh,

    R/o 279, IInd Floor,

   Satya Niketan, Moti Bagh,

     New Delhi-110021                                                 ….      Complainant

VERSUS

1. Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd.,
5.  

DLF Cyber City, Gurgoan,

Haryana 122002.….Opposite Party 1

2. Managing Director,

Unit No 701-702, Wing A,

Andheri East, Mumbai,

Mumbai City – 400069….Opposite Party 2

3. Oppo Authorised Service Centre

Shop No 99, Bhagat Singh Market,

Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.….Opposite Party 3

4. Gog Cheng Communications Lvt. Ltd

M-57, 1^st Floor, Lajpat Nagar Pt-II,

New Delhi-110024.….Opposite Party 4

ORDER

(By SH. SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, PRESIDENT)

1. The complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that on 29.07.2021 he has visited the store of OP-2 commonly known as Tata Cromo situated at C-10, Near Gurudwara Road, Block C, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.  The sales representative of the show room has shown him Oppo Mobile Phone Model No. Reno 605G. It was assured that the said phone has a long lasting battery with trouble free operation and the phone is worth buying.  The representative has also informed him about the buy-back option.  He agreed to buy the said mobile phone with buy back cost of the Oppo Mobile phone.  The cost of the mobile phone was 29,990/- and the cost of old mobile phone was assessed as 5300/-.  He has paid a sum of Rs. 23,690/- after the discount against invoice dated 30.08.2021.  He has encountered the problems like drainage of battery within 4-5 hours, frequent call drops, call freezing, poor network connectivity and phone gets switched-off off its own and gets reboot at many a times.  On 31.08.2021, he has contacted the customer care of OP-1 and even dropped an email on the same day.  He has visited the authorized service center of OP-1.  OP-3 is the authorized service center of OP-1.  The service center of OP-1 has updated the software after listening to his problems. He was advised to visit again as the facility of back-up provision was not available on that day. He did not receive any answer from OP-3 when he should visit again for updation of software.  He contacted the OP-4 i.e. another service center of OP-1.  OP-4 opened up work order on 04.09.2021 and updated the software.  The same problem persisted despite the software updation.  A legal notice dt 07.09.2021 was sent to OP-1 but in vain.  A reminder dated 13.09.2021 was issued to OP-1 to refund the money but without any result. OP-2 to 4 are the agents of OP-1 and they have been impleded for technical reason though no relief is claimed against them.  There is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. Hence, this complaint.

2. The notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. All of them were duly served but did not put their appearance.  On 08.07.2022, all of them were proceeded ex-parte.

3. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of the complaint as set out in the beginning while briefing the facts and placed reliance on the documents.

4. We have heard the complainant & pursued entire material on record.

5. The complainant has purchased the mobile phone in question on 30.08.2021 from the store of OP-2 for a sum of Rs. 23,690/- (as the original price was 28,990/- and discount and cost of old mobile phone of Rs. 5300/- were deducted from the original price). The copy of the invoice is shown as Annexure 1 & 2 though exhibited as EX PW1/2 in the affidavit. The complainant has noticed frequent battery discharge after 4-5 hours, frequent call dropping, call freezing, poor connectivity and mobile phone gets switched-off of its own and took time to reboot. The complainant has contacted the customer care of OP-1 and even issued email dt 31.08.2021, Annexure-3, and complainant was advised to visit the authorized service center.  The complainant has allegedly visited authorized service center i.e. OP-3 but problem was not rectified.

6. The complainant has visited another service center i.e. OP-4 of OP-1 which is clear from Annexure 4.  The problems were brought to the notice of OP-4.  The software was updated as no malfunctioning was found in the working of the mobile phone.  The complainant has received the set in the working condition which is clear from Annexure-4 which is shown as EX PW 1/5 in the affidavit.

7. The complainant was facing the same issues in the mobile phone despite the software updation by OP-4.  The mobile phone was not working properly, so a legal notice dt 07.09.2021 was issued to OP-1 by reflecting the problems faced by him in operating the mobile phone. A detailed legal notice was issued to OP-1 which is Annexure-5 and shown as EX PW 1/6 in the affidavit. The reminder to the legal notice was also issued but in vain.  The OP-1 did not reply to the legal notice.
8. The OP-1 did not come forward to contest the complaint. The reply to the legal notice was not given by OP-1. There were defects like early battery drainage, call dropping, network issue and mobile phone gets switched-off of its own.  The complainant has issued emails and even visited the service centers of OP-1 but problems still persisted. 

9. The evidence led by the complainant has gone unrebutted as no one on behalf of OP-1 has come forward to contest the complaint.  There is nothing on the record to view the version of the complainant with the aid of spectacles.  The evidence led by the complainant is relied upon. Reliance is placed upon Ved Prakash Vs Nokia Care Center 2013 (2) CPJ 94.

10. In view of the above said discussion, we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP-1 as defects in the mobile phone in question persisted despite the upgradation of software by the service centers.

11. The complaint of the complainant is allowed.  OP-1 is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 28,990/- (the amount of Rs 1,000/- of discount is deducted from the total cost of Rs. 29,990/- of the mobile phone in question) along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and litigation expenses. OP-1 is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which complainant is entitled for interest @ 9% per annum till the realization of the amount.

• Copy of this Order be supplied to parties free of cost.

• File is consigned to record room thereafter.

• Announced in the open court.

(R.C. YADAV)                            ( DR. HARSHALI SINGH)                                       (SURESH KUMAR GUPTA)

    MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT