Oppo fined for refusing to refund Hyd customer for a defective mobile phone

Till 5 September 2021, there was no response from the One Plus Service Centre. Therefore, a legal notice was sent to One Plus Service Centre, Oppo Mobile Private Limited, Rocket Kommerce LLP, and Amazon.

By Nimisha S Pradeep  Published on  16 Oct 2022 4:00 AM GMT
Oppo fined for refusing to refund Hyd customer for a defective mobile phone

Hyderabad: The Hyderabad Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission imposed a fine of Rs. 44,999 on Oppo Mobiles India Private Limited, Rocket Kommerce LLP, and One Plus Exclusive Service Centre in Hyderabad for refusing to refund the cost of a defective mobile phone to a customer in Hyderabad. The fine amount is to be jointly paid by the three entities.

The complainant, Maroju Prashanth of Sitaphalmandi in Hyderabad's Secunderabad, is a goldsmith. Post Covid-19, Prashanth saw online business picking up and he thought it would be good to have a phone to take orders online. He bought a One Plus Nord 5G phone online for Rs. 29,999. The product was sold by Kommerce LLP through Amazon and manufactured by Oppo Mobile Private Limited.

On 14 August 2021, while Prashanth was using the phone, he observed a line on the screen. He immediately went to the One Plus Exclusive Service Centre in Himayat Nagar. They made him wait for three hours and later told him that technicians were not available and asked him to come the next day. The next day being a national holiday, he went to the shop on 16 August 2021. They asked for some time as the complaint came within the warranty period.

On 19 August 2021, when Prashanth visited the service centre, they informed him that the handset had been forwarded to the technical team for repair. They also gave him the Oppo Mobiles' manager's contact number.

When Prashanth contacted the manager, he was told that "This type of issue is coming in all the above-said types of models and it is still pending with the technical team." The manager refused to give the same in writing. Prashanth left the phone with the service centre as it was not repaired. Meanwhile, when he contacted Oppo Mobiles Private Limited asking them for the address of the company office in Hyderabad, they refused to share the address.

Till 5 September 2021, there was no response from the One Plus Service Centre. Therefore, a legal notice was sent to One Plus Service Centre, Oppo Mobile Private Limited, Rocket Kommerce LLP, and Amazon. On 16 September, the manager of Oppo Mobiles called Prashanth and said the company was ready to replace the product with a new phone as they could not find a solution to the device's problem. But they refused to refund the cost of the already purchased product.

"If we observe the statements made by the manager of Oppo Mobiles Private Limited, firstly he stated that "this type of issue is coming in all the above said type of models" and finally "he informed the company about issue in mobile and the company agreed to replace the mobile with new phone of same model but cannot refund." These show that the opposite parties, knowing of the defect in the product, wanted to replace the same model mobile but not refund the cost of the mobile, which leads to unfair trade practice and deficiency in services," noted the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

It further said, "Whenever a brand-new product is sold to a customer there is an implied contract that the product being sold will not suffer from any kind of fault or imperfection. It is the bounden duty of the manufacturer, the seller, and the service centre to rectify the inherent defect in the product and satisfy the consumer. Therefore, this commission is of the considered view that the complainant has proved the deficiency of services and is entitled for compensation."

The Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission noted that Oppo Mobiles Private Limited, Kommerce LLP, and One Plus Exclusive Service Centre are liable to jointly compensate Prashanth Rs. 29,999, the cost of the product, Rs. 10,000 as compensation for the mental agony, and Rs. 5,000 as litigation costs. All three have been given 45 days to compensate the complainant.

The Commission, however, dismissed the case against Amazon as the company is an intermediary and the liability for such offences falls on the manufacturer of the product.

Next Story
Share it