Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 193
Instituted on : 12.03.2021
Decided on : 15.07.2024
Pramod Kumar s/o Sh.SantLal age 35 years, R/o 496/23, Patel Nagar Near NeelkanthMandir, Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- Reliance Retail Ltd. near Mansaroverpark, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its manager/proprietor.
- Oneplus Exclusive Service Centre, Hira building, Municipal no.213(OID-5) Ward No.76, Richmond town Brigade road, Bangalore 560001, through its manager/proprietor.
- Oneplus service centre golden enterprises, Shop no.3-4, Asharambapu complex Chotu Ram Complex Rohtak 124001 through through its Manager/proprietor.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Kamal Arora Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.YogenderDalal, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2& 3 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had purchased a Oneplus 8Pro mobile from the opposite party no.1 for Rs.59999/- vide invoice no.SG-1793/2019-20 on dated 23.11.2020. Opposite party no.1 told that in case of any default occurred in the mobile phone, the same will be replaced/return within 30 days. After 30 days, warranty will be provided by the opposite party No.2 & 3. The complainant used the said phone as per instructions provided by opposite party. The said phone is not working from the very beginning and it is having restarting problem, display problem, power off problem and hanging problem and in its software also, then the phone was deposited by complainant on dated 28.12.2020 vide job sheet no.CRRONZ29ZVV6 to the service centre and they assured to supply the said mobile phone within time.After some days on 09.01.2021 complainant submitted his mobile phone vide job sheet no.OVOAV7R4CNB andon 16.01.2021vide job sheet no.XGXS8ZELRHPE as the same problems appeared in the mobile phone.On dated 16.01.2021 it was clearly mentioned that all the main parts were already replaced but mobile was not working correctly. Complainant again visited to service centre on 01.03.2021 and they issued a job sheet no.7MZE9D9XA7WN. Complainant requested the opposite parties many times to replace the mobile but the same was refused by the opposite parties.. The act and conduct of the opposite parties of not repairing/replacing the mobile phone of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile phone amounting to Rs.59999/- and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and harassment and Rs.30000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint,notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.2did not receive back either served or unserved and none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. Hence after expiry of statutory period of one month, opposite party no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.11.2021 of this Commission. Notice issued to opposite party no. 3 received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 3. As such opposite party no.3was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.09.2022 of this Commission. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that opposite party No.1 is neither any manufacturer nor contributes to the process of manufacturing at any stage. Therefore the role of opposite party No.1 is limited upo this extent only. It is further submitted that the mobile in question was supplied to the complainant without any problem and in a perfect working condition nor the complainant experienced any problems with respect to the mobile phone after its purchase. Thus, no liability can be thrust on the opposite party No.1 for any kind of defect as alleged by the complainant. It is also a well-accepted fact that there is no role of retailer post sales of any product and it is always taken care by the service centre/manufacturer of the product. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence on dated 29.11.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence on 30.01.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, the complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 23.11.2020. As per job sheet sheet Ex.C2 dated 01.03.2021 there was ‘hanging &heating issue’ in the mobile set. As per Ex.C3 dated 16.01.2021 there were issues regarding: ‘intermittently powering off, Restart again and again’, as per job sheet Ex.C4 dated 09.01.2021 there were issues regarding ‘intermittently powering off, hanging problem & restarts automatically’, As per job sheet Ex.C5 dated 28.12.2020, there were issues regarding ‘slow processing or hangs’. All the job sheets show that the defect in the mobile phone appeared just after one month of its purchase but despite repeated repairs made by the service centre, defects of the mobile could not be removed.Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.2 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 torefund the amount of Rs.59999/-(Rupees fifty nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 12.03.2021 till its realisation. Opposite party No.2 is further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.07.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
