Expert Report Is Required To Establish Manufacturing Defects In Mobile Phones, Uttarakhand State Commission Allows Appeal Filed By Oppo India

Brief Facts:

The complainant had purchased an Oppo mobile handset for Rs. 15,041/- from Reliance Digital Retail Limited (“Seller”) in Haridwar. The mobile handset came with a one-year warranty, and at the time of purchase, the complainant was assured by the Seller that any issues with the handset would be promptly resolved, as Oppo had a service centre in Haridwar. Initially, the mobile handset functioned correctly for 25 days after purchase. However, thereafter, problems arose with the touch screen, causing the handset to hang. Other defects also surfaced.

On 06.02.2019, the complainant visited the service centre of Oppo, who formatted the handset and assured that the issue was resolved. Despite this, the malfunction persisted. Subsequent visits on 15.03.2019, 22.03.2019, and 29.03.2019 resulted in the data being removed and the handset updated, with assurances that the issue was fixed. However, the problems persisted, including issues with call connectivity and charging.

Despite repeated requests, the Seller refused to replace the handset. Therefore, the Complainant approached Oppo. However, allegedly, no resolution was provided. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (“District Commission”) against Oppo, the Seller and the service centre. The District Commission directed Oppo to provide the Complainant with a new mobile handset worth Rs. 15,041/- after receiving the one that the Complainant already had.

Dissatisfied by the order of the District Commission, Oppo filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand (“State Commission”). Oppo contended that the complainant failed to submit any expert report to establish that there was any technical or manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. Therefore, there was no authority to substantiate the replacement of the old handset with a new one of the same cost. On the other hand, the Complainant did not appear before the State Commission. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.

Observations by the State Commission:

The State Commission noted a lack of any mention of an expert report submitted by the complainant. Consequently, there was no evidence to support whether the mobile handset had an inherent technical defect. Moreover, the District Commission's claim that Oppo was willing to replace the handset lacked substantiation from the available records. Neither the joint written statement nor any corresponding application on record mentioned such consent.

Despite receiving ample notice, the complainant failed to appear before the State Commission, leaving Oppo's assertion uncontested. Consequently, the State Commission concluded that the District Commission had erred in allowing the consumer complaint without giving due consideration to the available evidence, particularly the absence of an expert report illustrating a manufacturing defect. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the District Commission's order was set aside.

Case Title: Oppo Mobile India Private Limited vs Sh. Vikas Sharma

Case No.: First Appeal No. 153 / 2021

Advocate for the Appellant/Oppo: Sh. Birandra Kumar Pagwal

Advocate for the Respondent/Original Complainant: None