Faulty mobile costs Oppo, service centre dear
The district consumer disputes redressal forum has penalised Oppo Mobiles India Private Limited, Gurgaon, and its service centre in Mansa Devi Complex (MDC), Sector 5, Panchkula, after a customer’s mobile phone developed fault within two months of its purchase.
The forum has directed the company and the service centre, Pace Tel Systems Private Limited, to refund ₹14,090, the repair charges of the mobile set, to the complainant Chander Bhalla, owner of Cubic Lifesciences Private Limited in Industrial Area, Phase 2, Panchkula, along with 9% interest per annum. They were also directed to pay ₹5,000 on account of mental agony and harassment, besides ₹5,000 as litigation charges.
The matter dates back to August 31, 2018, when Bhalla had purchased a mobile set of the company for ₹23,990 from Solan Shimla Traders, Manimajra. After two months, the mobile screen bent into a curve. Bhalla approached the mobile dealer, but they refused to change it and advised him to approach the service centre.
The service provider, too, refused to change the mobile set and offered to replace some parts of it, which Bhalla got done at a payment of ₹14,090 before moving the forum.
Matter of warranty
In their reply, the opposite parties said after proper inspection of the phone, it was concluded that there was no malfunction detected, rather its touch screen and main board were damaged. They submitted that as the damage was never covered under warranty, the complainant’s warranty became void and, simultaneously, an estimate was given for repair.
Considering the facts, the forum observed that it was clear that the authorised engineer of the service centre was not sure what the real cause of the damage to the screen was. Also, the forum did not come across any inspection report of the authorised engineer, who inspected and checked the mobile set.
“Since the mobile set got bent during the warranty period, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the service provider to charge the repair charges... there has been lapse and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties while rendering services to the complainant and, thus, both are liable to compensate him jointly and severally,” the forum ruled.