Haryana

Panchkula

CC/100/2017

VANDANA MALHOTRA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ONE PLUS INDAI (REGISTERED OFFICE.) - Opp.Party(s)

JAIMINI TIWARI

07 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                                               

Consumer Complaint No	:	100 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	09.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	07.09.2017

                                                                              

Vandana Malhotra W/o Rajneesh Malhotra, R/o House No. 935, Sector 17, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Oneplus India (Registered Office), Flat #7 & 10, Upper Ground Floor, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019, through it’s authorized signatory.
2. Mobile Zone Care, Booth No. 12, Sector 10, Panchkula, Haryana, through its authorized signatory.
3. AmazonIndia, Registered Office Address; Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram(W), Bangalore-560055, Karnataka, through its authorized signatory.
4. M/s Rocket Kommerce LLP, Varshini Apartments, Flat No. B3, N.No.13, ESWARAN Kovli St., West Mambalam, Chennai, 60033, Tamilnadu, India.

 

                                                                     ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Ms.Jaimini Tiwari, Adv., for the complainant.

              Ops already exparte.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal,  President)

 

1. Vandana Malhotra-complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that she ordered a mobile phone model One Plus 3T, (Gunmetal 6GB+64 GB) IMEI No. 863664033849091 for the price of Rs. 29,999/- vide order no. 402-7989358-9778735 on 11/03/2017, online from Amazon i.e the Op No. 3, and the same was delivered on 14.03.2017 around 9 P.M in the evening. The Ops no. 1 and 3 had sent a booklet (Inside the phone box) containing the return policy of the OP No. 1 which is as under:-

“Return Policy

OnePlus phone and accessories are made to the highest standards and undergo rigorous testing. If you are not satisfied with the your oneplus product for any reason, you may request a return within 15 calendar days of the delivery. Once we approve your request and receive the product, we will give you full refund. Any shipping and handling fee incurred in the return process are not covered by the refund. Return requests may made outside of 15 day period will not be accepted. We may also choose not to accept returns within these circumstances;

1. Defects or damages caused by misuse, neglect, physical damage, tampering, incorrect adjustment, normal wear and tear or incorrect installation after purchase.

 

2. Price fluctuation being the sole reason for return.

 

3. Customized customer contracts.”

A perusal of the above said policy clearly shows that in case the customer was not satisfied with the phone for any reason he could return the phone within 15 days of the delivery of the phone. The surprise of the complainant, the mobile phone which was delivered to complainant on 14.03.2017 abruptly stopped functioning on 26.03.2017 i.e  after few days on its delivery and the complainant discovered that the phone was not charging and there was no display in the same. The phone was basically dead. The matter was immediately reported to the customer care centre of OP NO. 3, who then advised to contact customer care center of the manufacture i.e OP No. 1 on 26.03.2017/27.03.2017. The matter was reported to the customer care centre of OP No. 1 on 27.03.2017 through telephonically. Complainant was advised by the customer care centre of the OP NO. 1 to visit its authorized service centre i.e Op NO. 2. On 27.03.2017 the complainant went to the service centre i.e OP No. 2 the complainant went to the service center of OP NO. 1 i,e OP NO. 2, however, it was holiday on Monday and local holiday in District Panchkula, the same was found to be closed. The complainant through her husband Rajneesh Malhotra, sent the phone to the Op NO. 2 on 28.03.2017. The phone was kept by the OP No. 2 and after some time on the same day, a detailed service report was given to the complainant. As per the report dated 28.03.2017 of the Op No. 2, there were major defects in the phone i.e “the main/Motherboard of the phone was heating up”. “The battery was overcharging/not charging” and “despite connected with power and vibration or with back light there was no display”. All this was mentioned in the report of the service centre of Op No. 2 which is the authorized service center for the Op No. 1. The phone was having manufacturing defect due to which it stopped working at all. Moreover from the service report it was also clear that the phone was in warranty period and also there was no mention of any physical/liquid damage to the phone in the service report. On 28.03.2017, the complainant wrote an email to OP No. 1 with a copy to the OP NO.2 and 3 lodging a complaint regarding the phone in question along with the copy of service report given by Op No. 2 and requested for the replacement of the phone. The surprise of the complainant the OP No. 1 wrote back through email dated 29.03.2017 that as per their replacement policy the phone could only be replaced within 10 days of the purchase. Post 10 days they could only replace the spare part of the device if necessary. The complainant also made a call of the toll free no of the Op NO.1 on 28.03.2017 and 29.03.2017 but to no avail. The OP NO.3 wrote back through the email dated 29.03.2017 but stated that the complainant would have to contact the manufacturer that is the OP No. 1. The Op No. 3 washed off its hands from the complaint of the complainant by stating that it was the manufacturer’s warranty/policy which would cover the phone. Complainant wrote again an email dated 29.03.2017 to the Ops for return of the mobile handset having manufacturing defects and refund of its amount of Rs. 29,999/-. As Ops were in breach of contract for supplying a phone having manufacturing defect, the complainant is entitled to the price of the phone refunded.  The Op No. 3 replied to the email of the complainant through email dated 30.03.2017, and again washed their hands off and stated that the complainant should contact the manufacturer. Going through the email written by the complainant and the phone in question was having manufacturing defects and request for return and refund of amount as per the return policy of the phone, the Op NO. 1 vide email dated 31.03.2017 refused to return the phone or the amount paid by the complainant. Vide email dated 31.3.2017, Op No. 1 admitted the issue with mother board of the phone but did not take any positive action for refund of the price of phone. OP No. 2 returned the defective phone and at present the same is lying with the complainant in a redundant condition. The complainant again through email dated 02.04.2017 refused to accept offer of repair of OP NO. 1 as she had purchased a new phone for a price of Rs. 29,999/-and did not want a refurbished phone for the said price. The Op NO.1 through its email dated 05.04.2017 replied that they were escalating the complaint to some escalation team and that the complainant would receive a call within 24 to 48 hours. After 48 hours, the OP NO. 1 called on the phone of the husband of the complainant, however the voice was not clear therefore the husband of the complainant asked them to call on the phone of the complainant. No call was placed to her therefore she wrote in the email dated 08.04.2017. It is submitted that after 3 days the complainant received a call on 09.04.2017 from Sh. Ravi again an Executive of the company who was not at all helpful and kept repeating the same lines as written in the email of OP No. 1 Mr. Ravi clearly admitted his phone call that he had no authority to rep-lace/return the phone. The complainant again wrote an email on 11.04.2017 clearly stating that it was more than 13 days that she had raised a complaint about the phone and she was suffering for not having a phone despite spending Rs. 29,999/- for the same. She also stated that this email be treated as a legal notice to the Ops. Still no positive action was taken by the OP. On 21.04.2017, reply was sent by the OP No. 1 stating that her request No. 880711 had been deemed to have been resolved and asked for feedback. The OP NO.1 was trying to manipulate its records by stating that the complaint of the complainant had been resolved without adhering to their own return policy. Therefore, the complainant again wrote to the OP NO. 1 vide email dated 24.04.2017 that the OP NO. 1 was misstating the return policy and was misguiding the customer. The return policy of the OP NO.1 was specifically reproduced in the email and scanned copy of the same was also attached with the email. There was a manufacturing defect in the phone and as per the return policy the complainant was entitled to refund of the amount if the request was made within 15 days of the date of delivery. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

2. Notice was issued to the Ops through registered post but none has appeared on behalf of the Ops. It is deemed to be served and the Ops are proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.06.2017.
3. The counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-17 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.
5. Arguments heard. On 27.08.2017, however at the fag end of the day Mr. Neeraj Sahai, Advocate has appeared and stated that he has applied to the Hon’ble State Commission for the setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings. The case was adjourned to 01.09.2017 to produce the copy of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission. But on 01.09.2017, none appeared on behalf of the Ops.
6. Admittedly, the complainant ordered a mobile phone model One Plus 3T, (Gunmetal 6GB+64 GB) IMEI No. 863664033849091 for the price of Rs. 29,999/- vide order no. 402-7989358-9778735 dated 11/03/2017 (Annexure C-1), online from Op No. 3, which was delivered on 14.03.2017. The Ops no. 1 and 3 had also sent a booklet (Annexure C-3) containing the return policy. As per the return policy, in case the customer is not satisfied with the phone, he could return the phone within 15 days of the delivery of the phone. The grievance of the complainant is that after few days of its purchase, the mobile phone stopped functioning as it was not charging and there was no display. The complainant approached the OP No. 2 i.e authorized service center who issued a job card dated 28.03.2017 (Annexure C-4) with remarks “main board heatup. On 28.03.2017 the complainant lodged a complaint regarding the mobile phone through email and requested for replacement of the mobile phone. On 29.03.2017 the OP NO. 1 replied through email that as per their replacement policy, the mobile phone could only be replaced within 10 days of its purchase. After passing of 10 days, they could only replace the spare part of the device if necessary and advised the complainant to contact the manufacture.  Thereafter, the complainant again sent an email dated 29.03.2017 to the Ops to replace the mobile handset with new one or to refund of its amount of Rs. 29,999/-. The Op No. 3 vide email dated 30.03.2017, replied and advised her to contact the manufacturer. Thereafter, vide email dated 31.03.2017 Op no. 1 refused to return the mobile phone or to refund the amount of the mobile phone. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
7.  Pertinently, the Opposite Parties chose not to appear before this Forum and were proceeded exparte. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted.  The allegation levelled in the complaint by the complainant is supported with his duly sworn affidavit.  The absence of the OPs seems to be intentional as despite due service they did not turn up to rebut the allegations of the complainant. It appears that the Ops have nothing to say against the allegations of the complainant that is why it remained absent from the proceedings of this Forum. Under these circumstances, we are left with no other alternative but to believe the allegations of the complainant.   Record reveals that the complainant had availed the services of the OPs but according to the complainant, the OPs did not provide him the service as per their promise. Since none has turned up on behalf of the OPs to rebut this contention of the complainant, we are of the view that there is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and it is liable to compensate him.  

8.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Parties are directed as under:-

1. To refund the cost of handset of Rs.29,999/- to the complainant alongwith @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 09.05.2017 till realization.
2. To pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.

 

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

07.09.2017 JAGMOHAN SINGH     ANITA KAPOOR    DHARAM PAL

                      MEMBER                   MEMBER               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                          

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT