Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/526/2015

Jatinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

20 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/526/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	11/08/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	20/05/2016

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

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 1004 (Basement), Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Partner/ Proprietor.

 

3.   M/s AKS Telecom, SCO 1092, Cabin No.10-11, 1^st Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Partner/ Proprietor.

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.1	:	Sh. Rajat Nakra, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties No.2 & 3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased one Oppo Find 7A mobile handset, carrying one year warranty, from Opposite Party No.2, on 23.06.2014, for a total consideration of Rs.31,990/- vide sale invoice Annexure C-1. In the month of October 2014, the said mobile handset started giving problems regarding network and charging, which was rectified by Opposite Party No.3. Thereafter on 13.6.2015, Complainant again approached the Opposite Party No.3 with the same problems. Even though the handset was returned to the Complainant on 19.6.2015, after repairs, yet on experiencing similar kind of problems again, the handset was deposited with the Opposite Party No.3, on 22.06.2015. The Complainant thereafter visited the Opposite Party No.2 a number of times, but neither his mobile was repaired nor replaced. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant thus constrained to file the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1, in its written statement, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that the Complainant first approached the Service Centre on 13.6.2015 i.e. 10 days before the expiry of the warranty of the said handset with the problem relating to charging and network and after thorough check, the handset was returned back to him on 19.06.2015. The Complainant thereafter, approached Opposite Party No.1 for defect in his mobile handset on 22.6.2015. Afterwards, the Complainant did not turn up to collect the handset in question from the Service Centre of answering Opposite Party. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.1 have been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 

 

7.     The main grievance of the Complainant is that the mobile phone which was purchased by him on 23.6.2014 with a warranty of one year, started giving problems relating to battery charging and network, just 10 days before the expiry of the warranty, and when the same was given for repairs, the Opposite Party No.3 (Service Centre of Opposite Party No.1) did not repair the same to the his satisfaction.

 

8.     It is borne on record that the Opposite Party No.3 carried out thorough inspection of the handset and did not find any fault and the same was returned to the Complainant. It is important to note that the batteries came with a warranty of six months only which fact is clearly mentioned on the user/ product manual. Interestingly, the Complainant did not opt for replacing the battery of the handset in question, on payment basis. On 18.06.2015 when the Complainant visited the Opposite Party No.3 regarding the problems of network and hanging, no such fault was discovered by the officials of the Opposite Party No.3. The Complainant has not attached any expert report about any problem with the telephone. Thereafter, on 22.06.2015, just a day before expiry of the warranty of said handset, the Complainant handed over the said handset to the officials of the service centre with the same problems without any expert opinion and the service report of the said handset was found to be perfect/fine. In these set of circumstances, we are of the concerted opinion that the Complainant appears to be indulging in speculative litigation by filing the present Complaint, which merits its dismissal.    

 

9.     For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.    

10.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

20^th May, 2016                                      Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER