Failure To Resolve Mobile Phone Issues Within Warranty Period, Gurgaon District Commission Holds OnePlus And Its Seller Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held One Plus and its seller, Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failure to resolve issues with a newly purchased phone, within the warranty period. They were directed to refund the amount...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held One Plus and its seller, Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failure to resolve issues with a newly purchased phone, within the warranty period. They were directed to refund the amount of the phone with interest, and pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant purchased a OnePlus Mobile with a one-year warranty from Vijay Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 18999-. Initially, the mobile phone operated without any issue for a few months. However, it soon began experiencing problems, including device auto restarts, delays in receiving phone calls, a 15-20 second delay in displaying caller names, sporadic breakdowns or hanging, and heating issues. The Complainant sought resolution from Vijay Sales on multiple occasions. She was advised to contact OnePlus. The Complainant lodged multiple complaints with OnePlus but didn't receive any satisfactory response or resolution.
Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (“District Commission”) against Vijay Sales and OnePlus. Vijay Sales and OnePlus didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission referred to the documentary evidence, including a copy of the Tax Invoice, and the OnePlus Warranty Policy which had a 12-month warranty period covering both parts and labour costs for the purchased phone. The District Commission held that Vijay Sales and OnePlus didn't appear for the proceedings and didn't present any evidence to contradict the claims made by the Complainant.
Given the lack of rebuttal evidence by Vijay Sales and OnePlus, the District Commission held them liable for deficiency in services. Consequently, the District Commission directed them to pay a sum of Rs. 18,999/- to the Complainant, representing the cost of the mobile phone, along with 9% interest per annum from the date of purchase, until the date of refund.
Furthermore, the District Commission directed Vijay Sales and OnePlus to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 11,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by her.
Case Title: Santosh vs Vijay Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others