Delhi

North East

CC/152/2021

Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oppo Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

23 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.152/21                                   

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Dharam Veer Sharma R/o 10 B 167, St. No. 10, Shiv Mandir Marg, Maujpur, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	Oppo Service Centre ASC Name Gong Cheng Communications Pvt. ASC Code INDL017 C 81/3, First Floor, Bhajanpura,  Delhi-110053   M/s Mobile Gallery 1449/137, Main 100 Ft. Road, Durgapuri, Extn., Shahdara, Delhi-110093, 55A/B 1 B2, 100 Ft. Road, Durgapuri Extn.,  Shahdara, Delhi-110093	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

18.10.21 22.03.24 23.04.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased mobile phone model no. CPH2127 from Opposite Party No.2 on 24.10.20 for a sum of Rs. 12,999/- having one year warranty which was financed by Bajaj Finance Ltd. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party No.2 without his permission got insurance of mobile in question for 2 years on payment of      Rs. 2,000/-. The Complainant stated that he came to know about the insurance when one EMI of mobile in question does not get deducted. The Complainant stated that there is problem in mobile in question from the date of purchase and Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant stated that he had repaired the mobile in question 3 times but the problems are not resolved. The Complainant stated that since the problems are not resolved by Opposite Party No.1. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The complainant has prayed for the cost of the mobile phone in question of Rs. 12,999/- and Rs. 20,000/- for mental harassment. He further prayed for Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 23.08.22.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

 

 

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant and we have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a mobile phone on 14.10.20 from Opposite Party No.2 which was having one year warranty. The Complainant further stated that he has faced problems regarding functioning of the said mobile phone and he approached Opposite Party No.1 for repairing the same on 05.12.20. After some time the said mobile phone again mal functioning and he approached again Opposite Party No.1 on 01.07.21. Further, it is stated by the Complainant that the said mobile phone was repaired thrice by the Opposite Party No.1 but problems were not resolved. Hence, there is deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties.
5. As per job card submitted by the Complainant along with his complaint there was no problem found in the working of handset but as requested by the Complainant software was upgraded. The Complainant did not lead any evidence regarding malfunctioning of the said mobile phone.
6.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of The Branch Manager Indigo Airlines, Kolkata & Anr. vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (2020)9 SCC429, held that “the initial onus or burden to justify there is deficiency of service committed by a party is on the party who filed the law suit.” 
7.  In view of the above and in our considered opinion, the Complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.  
8. Order announced on 23.04.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)