IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 31st day of May, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 91/21 (Filed on 17-06-2021)
Petitioner : Vinodkumar G.
VadakkeVariyamVeedu
Thalayazham P.O.
Vaikom, Kottayam - 686607
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The Managing Director,
OPPO Mobiles India Private
Limited, Plot No.1,
UdyogVihar, Greater Noida,
Gautham Buddha Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh – 201306.
2) The chief Executive Officer,
Realme Mobile
Telecommunication India
Private Limited – Corporate
Office, 3rd Floor, Tower – B,
Building No.8 DLF Cyber
City, Gurgaon – 122002.
Haryana .
3) The Manager,
Customer Care,
Realme Mobile
Telecommunications India
Private Limited, 3rd Floor,
Tower-B, Building No.8,
DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon
Haryana – 122002.
(For Op2 and 3, Adv. Nikihildev M.)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The complainant purchased a mobile phone from the opposite parties. Being impressed by their advertisement he approached a Realme showroom namely Manakkattu mobiles, Koothattukulam when the sales team described about the Realme phones. The showroom manager informed that Realme RMX 2020 was the bestselling brand among other varieties with outstanding performance and moderate price. Also he explained several merits if the said Realme phone if purchased. Believing their words of “Unmatched performance & product quality” and “Unmatched service experience” the petitioner decided to purchase the model. The mobile which he purchased was of Rs.10,990/- with a warranty of one year. The warranty conditions included comprehensive warranty services and maintenance on claim of performance failure. All these factors impressed the complainant and he purchased the said mobile. On 18.01.21 when the complainant was trying to make a call, the phone got switched off automatically. Immediately the complainant approached the dealer and handed over the phone for rectifying the defect. But after 2 days, the dealer contacted the petitioner and informed that an amount of Rs.1000 /-be remitted as service charge to repair the phone. Though the complainant informed them that the phone is under warranty period, after two days they again called and asked to pay Rs.5000/-for replacing the switch. Even after the complainant reminded them about the warranty, they were adamant that they would repair the phone only on payment. This is a clear deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party and hence this complaint is filed for compensation caused to the complainant due to the non usability of the phone as his job requires a good mobile phone.
Upon receipt of notice the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties appeared and filed version. The 1st opposite party in spite of the receipt of notice did not care either to appear or to file version and hence set exparte.
Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed joint version contending that the complaint is frivolous and improper. There is no expert evidence to show that the mobile phone had any inherent defect due to some manufacturing defect in order to make the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties liable.
The complainant submitted the impugned handset at the service center on 22/01/2021 raising the issue of not powering on. On examination the service tech of the answering opposite party found that the damage caused to the main board and finger print module was due to liquid damage. All the other allegations in the complaint are denied except that the phone was given for repair with the service team on 22/01/21 and as the defect was due to water damage, it was out of warranty and so the service team demanded payment because no service can be done free of cost if the repair is due to some damages which are out of cover of warranty. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed exhibit A1 to A3 through proof affidavit and the opposite party has not adduced any evidence.
The pleadings and evidence are perused in detail and the following points are framed.
Point No.1: whether the complainant has well established the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party entitling him for compensation?
Answering the above point, we considered the complaint in detail.
The complainant’s case is that the mobile phone purchased by him started showing default within 4 months from the date of purchase of the same and when he approached the opposite party’s authorized service personnel they demanded money for the repair though it was in the warranty period. On the other hand the opposite party contended that as the damage caused to the mobile was due to water damage, it is beyond the warranty. So the service team informed the complainant that as per the warranty conditions, they would repair the phone upon payment of Rs.5000/-.
The complainant has produced the purchase bill of the mobile phone which is marked as Exhibit A1 for an amount of Rs.10,990/-.The warranty card also is produced as Exhibit A3.
Though the opposite party has contended that the damage was due to water damage, no evidence has been adduced by them.
Moreover, the complainant also has not adduced any evidence to prove that the impugned mobile phone has any manufacturing defect like a report of a an expert in the field etc. So it is found that no manufacturing defect is proved by the complainant.
Now, the matter to be decided is whether the opposite parties are liable to act according to the warranty conditions or not. As there is no evidence before us to prove that the defect caused due to water damage and exceeded the warranty conditions, we find that the opposite parties are bound to assure proper service to their customers. So the opposite parties are liable to repair the mobile phone of the complainant free of cost as the mobile phone was damaged within 4 months from the date of purchase well within the warranty period.
The complainant is not entitled for a replacement of the phone as no manufacturing defect is proved.
Thus the complaint is allowed in part and
- We hereby direct the opposite parties to repair the mobile phone of the complainant free of cost within 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite party shall pay Rs.10,990/- the price of the phone.
- Rs.3000/ shall be given by the opposite parties jointly and severally towards compensation to the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31stday of May, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of invoice dtd.21-09-2020 by Manakkattu Mobiles
A2 – Copy of phone information
A3 – Copy of important information guide – Realme Mobiles
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
