Punjab

Sangrur

CC/357/2019

Udit Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oppo Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 357

 Instituted on:   18.07.2019

                                                                        Decided on:     06.12.2022

 

Udit Goyal aged about 28 years son of Sh.Rakesh Kumar Goyal, resident of H.No.108, Street No.32, Near Vishal Mega Mart, Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

 

1.     Oppo Mobile, Head office: 2^nd Floor, Block-1, Vatika Business Park, Sohna Road, Sector 49, Gurguram 122018 (Haryana) through its Managing Director.

2.     Oppo Authorized Service Centre, SCO No.2, March Three Mall, Railway Road, Anwar Enclave, Malerkotla 148023, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

3.     Me The Best Price, Prem Basti Road, Opposite DC Office, Sangrur through its Proprietor/Partner 148001.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:             : In person.              

For the OP No.1&2.             : None

For OP No.3                        : Shri  Harwinder Sharma,Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.      

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing a mobile set make Oppo A-3S for Rs.12,990/-  from OP number 3 vide invoice number 738 dated 03.08.2018 which was having one year warranty.    The grievance of complainant is that after the use of 6/7 months of the mobile set in question, it started creating problems of network fall, over heating when calling on phone, disconnect automatically and hanging a number of times. Further case of complainant is that he visited OP number 3 and apprised about the problems in the mobile set in question, but of no use. Further case of the complainant is that again 06.06.2019 the complainant visited the OP number 2 and apprised about the problems, but nothing was done. The complainant also approached OP number 2 on 13.6.2017 but of no use. Though the complainant requested OPs to replace the mobile set in question with a new one, but all in vain. The complainant has alleged further that there is manufacturing defects in the mobile set, due to which the defects in the mobile set are developing very shortly.  It is stated further that the mobile set in question has developed defects during the warranty period, as such it should be replaced with a new one.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to refund the purchase amount of the mobile set i.e. Rs.12,990/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment, to further to pay Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP number 1 and 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, as such he is not  entitled for any relief. On merits, it has been denied that the complainant ever approached OP number 2 for any defect in the mobile set in question. OP number 2 is the service station of OP number  1 which is a reputed company. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have also been denied. Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, the allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied. However, it is admitted that the complainant had approached OP number 3 and purchased the mobile set in question. It is stated further that whenever the complainant approached the OP number 3 with the problems in the mobile set, he was advised to approach OP number 2 i.e. service centre for rectification of the defects therein.  It is stated that there is no liability of the OP number 3 for any defects in the mobile set in question. Lastly, OP number 3 has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             The learned counsel for the  complainant has tendered Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of expert report, Ex.C-4 affidavit of expert, Ex.C-5 copy of certificate and closed evidence. Similarly, OP  number 1 and 2 has tendered Ex.OP1&2/Aaffidavit, Ex.OP1&2/1 copy of resolution, Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of aadhar card and Ex.OP1&2/3 copy of terms and conditions and closed evidence.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing the mobile set in question from OP number 3   vide invoice number 738 dated 03.08.2018 which was having one year warranty.  Further the learned counsel has contended that after the use of 6/7 months of the mobile set in question, it started creating various problems of network fall, over heating when calling on phone, disconnect automatically and its hanging a number of times. Further case of complainant is that he visited OP number 3 and apprised about the problems in the mobile set in question, but of no use. Further learned counsel has contended that again 06.06.2019 the complainant visited the OP number 2 and apprised about the problems, but nothing was done. The complainant also approached OP number 2 on 13.6.2017 but of no use. Though the complainant requested the OPs to replace the mobile set in question with a new one, but all in vain. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued further that there is manufacturing defects in the mobile set, due to which the defects in the mobile set are developing very shortly.  It is stated further that the mobile set in question has developed defects during the warranty period, as such it should be replaced with a new one and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has denied all the allegations of the complainant and reiterated that the OPs number 1 and 2 are responsible for the defect, if any, in the mobile set. It is worth mentioning here none has appeared for arguing the case on behalf of OP number 1 and 2.

7.             To prove his case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit wherein he has stated that the mobile set in question suffers from manufacturing defects. Ex.C-2 is the copy of invoice which shows that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.12,990/- for purchase of the mobile set in question on 03.08.2018. The complainant has also produced on record the expert report of Singh Communication dated 22.6.2019, Ex.C-3,  wherein the defects in the mobile set has been stated as mentioned in the complaint and has stated further that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set. Ex.C-4 is the affidavit of Shri Darshandeep Singh expert and Ex.C-5 is the certificate of Shri Darshandeep Singh showing that he has obtained training for advance mobile repairing course. Further to rebut this contention of the complainant, nothing has been produced by OPs nor any expert report has been produced on record.  In the circumstances, we find that OP number 1 and 2 have miserably failed to establish on record that the mobile set in question is in perfect working condition, rather the complainant has successful in proving the case that the mobile set suffers from manufacturing defects, due to which the complainant had to visit again and again to OP number 2.  Further nothing has been produced by Op number 2 to rebut the allegations of the complainant nor OP number 2 appeared before this Commission.   As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to replace the mobile set in question with a new one of the same model or to refund to the complainant the cost of mobile set i.e. an amount of Rs.12,990/-. However, it is made clear that the complainant shall be bound to return the defective mobile set alongwith all its accessories/attachments to the OPs at the time of receiving the amount of the mobile set. We further direct OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5500/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses. 

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        December 6, 2022.