Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/425/2021

Ambika Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorized Person/Director/Manager, Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jyoti Mehta Adv.

12 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	425 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	8.07.2021
Date of Decision	:	12.8.2022

 

                                               

                  

 

 

Ambika Rai D/o Sh. Dharam Dev Rai resident of H. NO.515-A, New Police Line, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

 

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1. The Authorized person/Director/Manager, Oppo Mobiles India Private Ltd Plot No.1, Sector EcoTech-VII, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201306

                                                                                        

2. Aadidev Global, Authorized Dealer SCO 1001, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh 160022.

 

 

3. One Plus Exclusive Service Centre Berkeley Square Shop NO.1, Plot No.24, Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh 160002.

…….Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:      SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SH. B.M SHARMA,         MEMBER

 

Argued by: -Ms. Jyoti Mehta, Adv. For the complainant.  

                     OPs exparte.

           

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

        Concisely put, the complainant purchased a mobile phone make one plus 8T (12+256GB) AQUAMARINE GREEN (manufactured by OP No.1)  from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.45300/- vide bill dated 5.3.2021 Annexure C-2. It is pleaded that the mobile was under warrantee for a period upto March 2022.    It is alleged that the mobile in question started giving problems from the very first day.  The camera images were blurred and lightening lines were occurring while capturing slow motion video. Therefore, the complainant went to service centre i.e. OP No.3 and described the whole problems to them.  The complainant showed the videos captured with the mobile in question, which were not clear but instead of rectifying the problem they replied that this is not a problem but it is only an effect, which according to the complainant is totally misleading. The complainant also sent an email Annexure C-4 to the customer care of OPs about her problems but no positive response was received and as such the grievance of the complainant remained un-redressed. Ultimately, the complainant sent legal notice dated 22.4.2021 to the OPs but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid acts of the OPs unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, this complaint has been filed.    

2.             OPs did not turn up despite service of notice, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 31.12.2021.

3.             Complainant led evidence in support of her contentions.

4.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the entire record. 

5.             It is well evident on record that the complainant purchased the Mobile in question from OP No.2 by paying an amount of Rs.45300/ on 5.3.2021. It has been so alleged by the complainant that said mobile in question started giving problems of camera bluring and lightening lines while capturing slow motion video.  The complainant in the complaint also alleged that she approached OP No.3 the service centre but they failed to rectify the problems and rather tried to mislead the complainant.    It is manifested from the record that the complainant sent an email Annexure C-4 and Legal Notice dated 22.4.2022 to the OPs for redressal of her grievance but despite that the OPs, failed to rectify the defect or replace the defective mobile in question, and complainant thus forced to file present complaint seeking redressal of her grievance. 

6.             It is observed that the OPs despite being duly served, failed to appear or come forward to contradict the allegations set out in the present complaint, which raised a reasonable presumption that the Opposite Parties not only have failed to render due service to the complainant but also have nothing to contradict in regard to the allegations set out in the complaint, meaning thereby that they duly admit the claim of the complainant.  

7.             From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of OPs. Therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed with direction to the Opposite Parties to refund the invoice price of the mobile in question to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay a composite amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for rendering deficient services which also includes litigation expense. Complainant shall return the mobile in question to the OPs against receipt after receiving refund of the mobile and compensation amount. 

8.             This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional amount of
Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant apart from the above awards.  

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