Ernakulam District Commission Holds Oneplus Liable For Failure To Provide Spare Parts

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant bought a TV from OnePlus/manufacturer from Flipkart, and later, the TV started having display issues. After contacting OnePlus Customer Care, a technician identified the need for a panel replacement. Despite numerous follow-ups over a month, the problem persisted due to claimed parts shortages and unfulfilled resolution promises. Frustrated with the situation, the complainant filed a grievance, and initially, OnePlus suggested replacing the TV with a coupon. However, they later opted to replace the panel, delaying the fix by ten days. The TV remained non-functional for about 90 days, within its warranty period. The complainant alleges that OnePlus did not intend to resolve the issue and provided only false assurances. Seeking a refund of Rs 38,000 and compensation of Rs 37,000 for mental anguish, lost wages, and harassment, the complainant also requests suitable litigation costs.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The Commission sent notice to the opposite party, which was acknowledged by them, but they did not file their version. Therefore, they have been set as ex-parte.

Observations by the Commission

The commission observed that considering the evidence and the unchallenged claims of the complainant, it is evident that the complainant is entitled to relief. The manufacturer's failure to respond to the complaint and provide a satisfactory resolution indicates their negligence and unfair trade practices. It was further observed that In the absence of a dedicated 'Right to Repair' law in India, instances exist where the judiciary has intervened to address related concerns. In the case of Shri Shamsher Kataria v. Honda SielCars Limited & Ors., the Honourable Competition Commission of India (CCI) emphatically affirmed that any anti-competitive actions taken by the automobile industry under the pretext of intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) would be terminated and declared void. This specific case revolved around the issue of restricting consumers from purchasing goods or services exclusively from authorized car dealers. Another noteworthy case, Sanjeev Nirwani v. HCL, established the obligation for companies to provide spare parts beyond the warranty period. Failure to do so was deemed an unfair trade practice. In light of the circumstances, the manufacturer failed to provide the necessary spare parts for the product to address the defects, thereby exhibiting a deficiency in service and engaging in unfair trade practices. The commission directed the manufacturer to refund the sum of Rs. 38,000 to the complainant, along with Rs. 20,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. It shall also pay the complainant the sum of Rs.10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.