Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/207/2016

Jatinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oppo Mobiles India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar, Adv.

23 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Appeal No.	:	207 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	19.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	23.09.2016

 

Jatinder Singh son of Sh.Ajit Singh, resident of H.No.3171, Sector 56, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office:F-16, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110 020, through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Harbans Singh & Sons, SCO No.1004 (Basement), Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Partner/Proprietor.
3. M/s AKS Telecom, SCO No.1092, Cabin No.10-11, First Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Partner/Proprietor.

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

                 None for respondent no.1.

                 Respondents no.2 and 3 exparte.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                This appeal is directed against an order dated 20.05.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the Forum only) vide which, it dismissed a complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

               

2.         Before the Forum, it was case of the appellant that he had purchased one mobile handset from respondent no.2/opposite party no.2, on 23.06.2014, for an amount of Rs.31,990/-, vide invoice Annexure C-1. In the month of October 2014, twice over, the said mobile handset started giving troubles. It was taken to the authorized service centre run by opposite party no.3, for repair. Without opening the job sheet, repair was affected. Thereafter, in the month of June 2015, again the mobile handset started giving trouble, in its operation. On 13.06.2015 mobile handset was again taken to opposite party no.3. After four days i.e. on 17.06.2015 it was returned to the appellant. As the mobile handset was not repaired properly, again it started giving trouble and on 18.06.2015, it was again taken to opposite party no.3 for repair. After effecting repair, it was returned to the complainant on 19.06.2015. Copies of job sheets have been placed on record as Annexures C-2 and C-3. The mobile handset again started giving following troubles to the complainant:-
   1. Network problem
   2. Phone hang
   3. Battery backup low
3.         For repairs, the complainant approached opposite party no.3 but the mobile handset was not accepted by it for repairs. He brought this fact to the notice of Customer Care Department of respondents no.1 and 2 and on getting instructions from Officials of the said Department to repair the mobile handset, job sheet was opened on 22.06.2015. Thereafter, he approached the opposite parties a number of times but his mobile handset after repairs, was not returned to him, as a result whereof, he has purchased a new mobile handset.
4.         Despite deemed service, none put in appearance, on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3, as a result whereof they were proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 01.12.2015.
5.         Respondent no.1 in its written reply stated that the appellant is in a habit of filing such like complaints. Earlier also he had filed a similar complaint, in which he was successful. It was further stated that as and when mobile handset was offered for repairs, it was so done. After giving his mobile handset for repair on 22.06.2015, the complainant never came back to collect it. On facts, it is admitted that the mobile handset was taken for repair to opposite party no.3, on the dates, as mentioned in earlier part of this order.
6.         To the reply filed by respondent no.1, the appellant filed rejoinder, wherein all the averments contained in the complaint were reiterated and those contained in written version of opposite party no.1 were repudiated.
7.         The appellant and respondent no.1 led evidence in support of their case.
8.         After hearing Counsel for the appellant, respondent no.1 and on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated above.   
9.         Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
10.         Despite deemed service in this appeal, none put in appearance on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte by this Commission, vide order dated 09.09.2016.
11.         At the time of arguments, none chooses to put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.1. Counsel for the appellant was heard on the merits of this complaint and the appeal was reserved for orders.
12.         After perusing the record and on analysis of arguments raised, we are of the considered view that the Forum went in error in dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant, in toto. It is admitted on record that the appellant had purchased a mobile handset on 23.06.2014 and it was under warranty for period of one year. It is case of the appellant that he had gone to opposite party no.3 for repair of the mobile handset, as it was suffering from network problem; phone hanging and battery backup was very low.

                In the reply filed, at the instance of respondent no.1 before the Forum, it is stated that on 13.06.2015, when the complainant came for repair of the mobile handset, complaining low charging and network problem, no such defect was discovered on inspection. It was conveyed that qua low battery charging, it (battery of the mobile handset) came with a warranty of six months only and it was so mentioned on the user/product manual given to the appellant, at the time of sale of the mobile handset.

13.         It was further stated in para no.5 (preliminary objections) that the complainant was advised to get the battery changed against payment. To support above said contention, nothing has been placed on record. Otherwise also, it is not expected that a person, who purchases a mobile handset costing worth Rs.31,000/- will require to change its battery after every six months of its use. It is an admitted fact that the mobile handset was under warranty for a period of one year from the date of its purchase. If warranty period for the battery was only for a six months, it was bounden duty of respondents to disclose it to the appellant, when the mobile handset was purchased. What was contained in the user/product manual is also not available on record. Bald statement made by the respondents have been accepted by the Forum, without any justification. Ordinarily, it will be presumed that warranty of one year is qua all parts of the mobile handset, unless contrary is brought to the notice of the purchaser, at the time of purchase. It is an admitted fact that the battery was not working properly. In those circumstances, it was bounded duty of the respondents to replace the said battery, with a new one, as the mobile handset was within warranty period. It is also on record that the mobile handset is lying with opposite party no.3 whereof 22.06.2015. In reply filed it is only stated that of his own, the appellant had left that mobile handset with opposite party no.3 and never returned to pick it up. This complaint was filed on 11.08.2015 i.e. after about two months when mobile handset was retained for repair by opposite party no.3 on 22.06.2015. There is nothing on record that at any time, the appellant was asked by the respondents to collect the mobile handset, as no defect was found in it. The Forum has accepted above said plea of the respondents without any supporting evidence on record. Under above circumstances, the order impugned passed by the Forum deserves to be set aside.
14.         No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the appellant.
15.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted. The order of the Forum is set aside. The complaint is partly allowed. The respondents, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
    1. To replace the defective battery of the mobile handset with a new one, and after making it fully operational, return the same to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
    2. After repairing the mobile handset, intimation be sent to the appellant, by way of writing a  letter to him, at the address given in this appeal, to collect it. Besides this, SMS be also sent to Counsel for the appellant, Sh. Devinder Kumar, on his mobile number  98887-22232.
    3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation, to the appellant for causing him mental agony and physical harassment as also deficiency in providing service and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the amount awarded shall carry interest @8% p.a. from the date of filing the main consumer complaint till payment is made.
16.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

23.09.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

Rg