Delhi

East Delhi

CC/336/2017

AYUSH GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

OPPO MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

06 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 336/17

 

Shri Ayush Gupta

s/o Shri Rajesh Singhal

R/o413, Noor Nagar,

Sihani Ghaziabad UP

                                                               ….Complainant

Vs.    

1. OPPO Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd.

F-16, Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase-I, New Delhi- 110020

 

2. GDN Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

H-10, Sector-63, Noida- 201307

Gautam Buddh Nagar, UP- India

 

3. Pace Tel systems Private Limited

WA-86, 1^st Floor, Shakarpur,

Opposite to Shiv Shakti Mandir,

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi

                             …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 24.08.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 06.08.2019

Judgement Passed on: 08.08.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

          The present complaint has been filed by, Shri  Ayush Gupta, the  complainant, against, OPPO Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd., OP-1; GDN Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., OP-2 and Pace Tel systems Private Limited, OP-3, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant on 09.05.2016, purchased one Oppo F1 Plus, Rose Gold from Mobile Planet, Ghaziabad for Rs. 27,000/- vide invoice number 485 and IMEI no. 869770027146552 and 869770027146545. The said handset was under 2 years warranty. At the time of purchase the complainant was assured of the quality and after sale services rendered by OP-1.

After some time the complainant started to face problems like heating at the time of charging and calling, hanging and audio problem, for which the complainant approached OP-3, the service center. On 01.06.2017 job sheet          no. INDL01120170601R799 was issued by OP-3 but the problems mentioned above could not be rectified and finally OP-3 replied that they could not rectify the handset.

Legal Notice was sent to OPs, to which the OPs did not give any satisfactory reply. Feeling aggrieved the complainant has filed the present complaint with prayer for directions to OPs to refund Rs. 27,000/- alongwith interest @24% per annum; Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment with litigation charges of Rs. 10,000/- .

The complainant has annexed the job card dated 01.06.2017, warranty card, retail invoice dated 09.05.2016 and Legal Notice dated 09.06.2017 with the complaint.

Notice of the present complaint was served upon the OPs and reply was filed on behalf of OP-1 and OP-3. It was stated that the complainant had concealed the actual and correct facts. The complainant had visited the service centre after more than one year of using the handset and upon examination the same was found to be OK and returned to the complainant with remark “no trouble found” and thereafter the complainant had not visited OP.

It was submitted that the Legal Notice sent by complainant was duly replied vide reply dated 20.06.2017, where the complainant was requested to visit the service centre again for any assistance with the assurance of full support. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied with the prayer for dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the Written Statement of OP-1 and OP-3 was filed by the complainant, where the contents of the Written Statement have been denied and those of the complaint have been reiterated.

The complainant has got examined himself and has repeated the averments made by him in the complaint and has relied upon the annexure annexed with the complaint, which are Mark A to Mark E.

OP-1 and OP-3 have got examined Shri Dinesh Kumar, Authorized Representative, who has also deposed on oath the contents of their Written Statement.

We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for Complainant and AR of OP-1 and OP-3. Since, OP-2 did not put appearance despite service, they were proceeded ex-parte. Even in the complaint there is not an iota of allegation against OP-2. 

Perusal of the material placed on record reveals that the handset was under warranty and the complainant has visited OP-3 with the complaint of audio problem almost after one year of purchase, which is evident from the job sheet dated 01.06.2017. The said handset was under warranty is not in dispute. OP-1 and OP-3 have not placed any reply to the Legal Notice, where they have requested the complainant to visit the service centre for assistance. So, this seems to be an afterthought merely to create defence.  Once the handset was under warranty the complainant was entitled to get the same repaired to his satisfaction. Since, OP-1 and OP-3 have failed to remove the defects reported by the complainant, they are definitely liable for deficiency in services.

Hence, we direct OP-1 and OP-3 to remove the issues reported by the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of order. We further award Rs. 7,500/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment, inclusive of litigation expenses.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room..

     

 (DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                                  (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

          Member                                                                               Member    

                                       (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                            President