Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/268/2021

K Raveendran Nair - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,OPPO Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

16 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

       SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

  SMT.PREETHA G NAIR: MEMBER

                                                                               SRI.VIJU.V.R                : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.268/2021 (Filed on : 18/09/2021)

ORDER DATED : 16/11/2022

COMPLAINANT

K.Raveendran Nair,

Parvathy Bhavan,

Erayamcode, Cheriyakonni.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram

Pin – 695 013

 

(Party in person)

                                                          VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Manager,

OPPO Mobiles India Pvt Ltd,

5.  

Building No.8,

DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon,

Haryana, India, Pin – 122 002

 

2. The Manager,

OPPO Exclusive show room,

Sansco Technologies,

Kerala Pvt Ltd, Pazhavangadi,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695023

1.  

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                  : PRESIDENT

1.           This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.           This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. The notice issued to the first opposite party was accepted, but failed to appear before this Commission as directed by this Commission. The notice issued to second opposite party was returned with endorsement “refused”. Hence both the parties were called absent and set exparte.

 

3.           The case of the complainant in short is that he purchased an OPPO mobile handset model No.A1k on 10/09/2020 from the second opposite party by paying a sum of Rs.8057.72. In the receipt as well as and the cover of the handset, the ROM (Internal memory) of the set is recorded as 32 GB. But on 11/09/2020, when the complainant examined the storage of the set, it was found that the storage is only 21.5 GB. According to the complainant the used space and the available space together should be 32 GB. But on verification it is found that used space and the available space in the subject matter mobile handset is only 21.5 GB. The complainant further submits that the opposite parties have advertised that the handset is having 32 GB internal storage. The complainant further submits that the opposite parties have published misleading advertisements and the product of 21.5 GB internal storage was sold to the complainant as if the same is having 32 GB internal storage. According to the complainant the act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and hence approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.

 

4.           The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 from the side of the complainant. The opposite parties 1 & 2 being declared exparte. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite parties.

 

5.     Points for consideration

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint.
3. Order  as to cost.

6.  Heard. Perused affidavit and records. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 were produced and marked. Ext.P1 is the tax invoice issued by the second opposite party to the first opposite party. Ext.P2 is the registered letter issued by the complainant to the first opposite party. Ext.P2 (a) is the postal receipt. Ext.P3 is the registered letter issued by the complainant to the second opposite party. Ext.P3 (a) is the postal receipt. Ext.P4 is the photocopy of the cover pack of the product. Ext.P1 and Ext.P4 shows that the mobile set purchased by the complainant from the opposite party is having 32 GB space coverage. Exts.P2 and P3 letters will show that the complainant has brought these issues to the notice of the opposite parties 1 & 2. There is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant. Hence the evidence adduced by the complainant before this Commission stands unchallenged. By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Exts.P1 to P4, and in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite parties. From the available evidence before this commission, it is evident that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. As per the evidence available before this commission the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony. As the financial loss and mental agony to the complainant was caused due to the unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, we find that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for the loss sustained by the complainant. In view of the above discussions and in the absence of any evidence from the side of the opposite parties, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.

                 In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with Rs.2500/- towards the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of remittance /realization.  

                 A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

                Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 16^th day of November 2022.

 

                                                                                     Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

                                                                                        Sd/-

PREETHA.G.NAIR : MEMBER

                                                                Sd/-

VIJU.V.R    : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.268/21

List of witness for the complainant

PW1            - K.Raveendran Nair

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1         - Copy of tax invoice issued by the second opposite party to the    

                     first opposite party.

Ext.P2         - Copy of registered letter issued by the complainant to the first   

                     opposite party.

 Ext.P2 (a)   - Postal receipt.

Ext.P3         - Copy of registered letter issued by the complainant to the

                     Second opposite party.

Ext.P3 (a)    - postal receipt.

Ext.P4         - Photocopy of the cover pack of the product.

List of witness for the opposite parties – NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite parties – NIL

Court Exhibits                                       - NIL

                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                         PRESIDENT