Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/446/2019

Karan Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s ONE PLUS India - Opp.Party(s)

Ankit Gupta

22 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/446/2019
Date of Institution	:	20/05/2019
Date of Decision	:	22/04/2022

 

 

Karan Garg s/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal Garg r/o Flat No.304, Tower I, Victoria Heights, Peermuchalla, Zirakpur, Punjab – 140603.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s One Plus India through its Managing Director, Corporate Office : 5^th Floor, Kabra Excelsior, Opposite Wipro Park 80 Ft Road, Koramangala, 1^st Block, Bangalore, Karnataka.
2. M/s OPPO Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Plot No.01, Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
3. M/s One Plus Service Center through its Branch Manager/Concerned Person, X-Zone, SCO 26, 1^st Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh 160020.

IInd Address : SCO 54, First Floor, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh.

4. M/s One Plus Service Center through its Branch Manager/Concerned Person, Mobile Zone Care, Booth No.12, Sector 10, Panchkula 134102.

… Opposite Parties

5. M/s Amazon India through its Managing Director Registered Office :- Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1 Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore, Karnataka.

… Performa Party

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ankit Gupta, Counsel for complainant
	:	None for OP-1
	:	OP-2 ex-parte
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-3 (OP-3 exparte)
	:	OP-4 ex-parte
	:	None for OP-5.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.      The facts in brief are, complainant purchased a One Plus 6T mobile phone of OP-1, manufactured by OP-2 from website of OP-5 vie receipt dated 1.11.2018 for a total sum of ₹37,999/- and the same was having one year warranty. On 21.12.2018 evening when the complainant started the said mobile handset, the touch screen did not work and the display light started giving problem and the mobile handset hanged during operation.  On the advice of OP-1, the complainant visiting OP-3 on 22.12.2018 and apprised about the problems and OP-3 updated the software.  However, after a month the mobile set started giving same problems and the complainant again visited OP-3 on 6.2.2019 and the same was repaired.  On 4.3.2019, the mobile handset again started giving same problem and OP-3 told that there was some manufacturing defect and it replaced the motherboard free of costs. On 15.4.2019 the mobile again started giving same problems and OP-3 replaced the touch.  However, the problems still persisted and the complainant approached OP-4 who repaired the touch and software, but to no avail. Alleging that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset and that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     OP-1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and admitted the facts with regard to purchase of the mobile set in question.  Denied the complainant ever reported the issue to the authorized service centre on 22.12.2018. It has also been admitted that the complainant faced issue in relation to touch of the device; that PCB (motherboard) was replaced free of cost and that technician performed software upgrade and he found no fault in PCB and touch of the device. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     Registered notice was sent to OP-2 which was presumed to have been served. Since none appeared on behalf of OP-2, therefore, vide order dated 29.10.2019 of this Commission, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
4.     Upon notice, Sh. Manwar Singh, authorized representative put in appearance on behalf of OP-3 and the case was adjourned for filing reply and evidence.  However, subsequently neither reply and evidence were filed nor anybody put in appearance on behalf of OP-3, therefore, vide order dated 29.10.2019 it was proceeded against ex-parte.
5.     Registered notice was sent to OP-4 which was presumed to have been served. Since none appeared on behalf of OP-4, therefore, vide order dated 8.8.2019 of this Commission, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
6.     OP-5 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and did not dispute the factual matrix. Averred OP-5 does not advertise or endorse any product or service on its website or anywhere else and it merely provides online marketplace where independent third party sellers list their products for sale. The product in question was neither manufactured nor sold by
   OP-5.  Stated the contract of sale and purchase of items traded over the website was strictly a bipartite contract between the registered seller and the customer and both were bound by the terms of the “Conditions of Use”.  As such only sellers are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-5 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint. 
7.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
8.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
9.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
10.     It is evident from Annexure C-1, that the complainant purchased One Plus 6T mobile from website of Opposite Party No.5 manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 on 01.11.2018 after spending an amount of Rs.37,999/-. As per Annexure C-4 the warranty of the handset in question was to be expired on 01.11.2019 i.e., after one year. Annexure C-5 dated 22.12.2018, Annexure C-6 dated 06.02.2019, Annexure C-7 dated 04.03.2019, Annexure C-8 dated 15.04.2019, Annexure C-9 dated 19.04.2019 and Annexure C-10 dated 30.04.2019 are the various job-sheets in which there is mention of display related issue repeatedly. Even motherboard was replaced free of cost and thereafter touch screen was also replaced. Despite various major repairs defect in the handset could not be rectified hence is the present case.
11.     The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 is that as and when the complainant approached it the problem in the handset was resolved. Hence it cannot be held liable for deficiency in service.
12.     Opposite Party No.5 has contested the consumer complaint stating that it is neither the manufacturer nor the seller and is an independent online market place. Hence it is not deficient in providing service to the complainant.
13.     After going through the entire record, it is abundantly clear that the complainant purchased the handset in question to facilitate himself and not to repeatedly visiting the service centre for the rectification of the same fault. The service record clearly shows that the complainant could not enjoy the facility rather he had run from pillar to post and could not use the handset properly. Hence the act of the Opposite Parties to sell substandard product to the complainant, thereafter non-providing services during the warranty period prove deficiency in service.
14.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹37,999/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 01.11.2018 till realization. The complainant shall, however, return the handset in question to the OPs.
2. to pay an amount of ₹7000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

15.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
16.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
22/04/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
Ls	Member	Presiding Member