Sudden Explosion Of Mobile Phone, Amritsar District Commission Orders Oppo Mobiles And Its Authorized Service Centre Liable
The Amritsar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Lakhwinder Pal Gill (Member) held Oppo Mobiles and its authorized service centre responsible for deficiency in service. This deficiency was linked to an explosion of an Oppo mobile phone that had been purchased by the complainant, resulting in an injury and a...
The Amritsar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Lakhwinder Pal Gill (Member) held Oppo Mobiles and its authorized service centre responsible for deficiency in service. This deficiency was linked to an explosion of an Oppo mobile phone that had been purchased by the complainant, resulting in an injury and a burning sensation on his right leg.
Brief Facts:
The complainants, Jasbir Singh and Kumakshi Khanna, purchased an Oppo A5 mobile phone in January 2020. On March 18, 2022, while one of the Complainants was riding a motorcycle with the mobile phone in his pocket, the mobile phone reportedly exploded. This explosion caused an injury to him, resulting in a burning sensation on his right leg. The sensation rapidly escalated, becoming unbearable, and causing a loss of control over the motorcycle. Both the Complainant and a pillion rider fell to the ground.
As a result, the Complainant sustained an internal injury to his shoulder, and the skin on his right leg, beneath the pocket where the mobile phone was situated, was burnt. The Complainant documented the incident by taking photographs of his burnt leg, the damaged mobile phone, and the trousers he was wearing as evidence. While the medical treatment was ongoing, the complainants filed a consumer complaint in the Amritsar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”).
The complainants alleged that, subsequent to the incident, they approached the entities involved in the sale of the mobile phone for assistance, and they encountered difficulties in obtaining a resolution to the issue.
Oppo Mobiles and its authorized service centre argued that the complainant failed to approach the authorized service centre for resolution. They emphasized the absence of a job sheet, typically provided to customers visiting the service centre. They asserted that the complainant's alleged loss or damage to the mobile phone was due to his actions, not any fault on their part. They argued that the medical treatment and certificate provided by the complainant had no connection to the mobile phone incident.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission rejected the contentions made by Oppo that complainants were solely responsible for the loss or damage to the mobile phone due to negligence or mishandling. It noted that the photographs and medical records indicated that the mobile phone had exploded. The District Commission highlighted that no prudent person would intentionally harm themselves, as implied by the other party, and the physical evidence spoke to the contrary.
The District Commission further noted that the Oppo’s service centre had not taken steps to determine the exact cause of the explosion or to assess whether there were any manufacturing defects. It also held that the fact that the mobile handset had exploded was a strong indication of a manufacturing defect. Such a defect would fall under the terms of warranty, regardless of the timing of the complaint.
Consequently, the District Commission held Oppo and its service centre liable for deficiency in service and directed it to replace the mobile handset with a new one of the same make or model from the shop responsible for the sale of the mobile phone. If the same make and model were not available, Oppo was ordered to refund the purchase price of Rs. 13,000 to the complainant. Additionally, the District Commission ordered it to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000 to the complainant.
Case: Jasbir Singh vs Oppo Mobiles
Case No.: CC/139/2022
Advocate for the Complainant: Ms. Kumakshi Khanna along with Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Puri
Advocate for the Respondent: Sh. Shubham Sharma