Failure To Rectify Persistent Issues With Defective Mobile Phone, Mysore District Commission Holds One Plus, Its Service Centre Liable

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka) bench of A.K. Naveen Kumari (President) and Maruthi Vaddar (Member) held 'OnePlus' and its service centre liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to adequately address persistent software and hardware issues in a defective mobile phone. It was observed that OnePlus failed to meet the legitimate expectations of the consumer, despite being a reputable brand. Brief Facts: Mr Manoj Kumar (“Complainant”) purchased a 'OnePlus 9R 5G (256GB)' smartphone for Rs. 40,999/- through Amazon. The phone functioned seamlessly for the first few months. However, after a software update, its performance deteriorated significantly. The phone started experiencing various issues such as frequent crashes, unresponsive applications, slow performance and screen display issues. This made the phone practically unusable. Subsequently, the Complainant approached OnePlus's service centre in Mysore to get these issues rectified. However, he was informed that the necessary spare parts for screen replacement and software rectification were unavailable. Instead, the service centre offered a voucher of a low value. This could only be used to purchase another OnePlus phone. The Complainant expressed dissatisfaction with this solution. However, there was no alternative solution provided by OnePlus. After persistent follow-ups, OnePlus agreed to replace the faulty phone. However, within five to six months, the replaced phone also exhibited the same defects as the original one. When the Complainant sought a refund, OnePlus responded in a dismissive and uncooperative manner. One of the representatives of OnePlus even told the Complainant to “do whatever you want.” Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (“District Commission”) against OnePlus and its service centre. OnePlus and its service centre didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings. Therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission noted that the Complainant consistently communicated the inherent problems with the phone to OnePlus. However, OnePlus failed to take any meaningful steps to address or resolve the issue. It noted that OnePlus remained indifferent and dismissive. OnePlus even stated that "even if the phone undergoes repairs, the problem is likely to recur" which, according to the District Commission, reflected an unacceptable and irresponsible attitude by OnePlus towards a genuine grievance. The District Commission noted that the Complainant made substantial efforts to resolve the issue amicably, but OnePlus failed to engage in any constructive dialogue or action. It held that the conduct of OnePlus and its service centre reflected a lack of accountability and a deliberate attempt to frustrate the consumer's legitimate rights. Therefore, it held that this conduct amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Consequently, it directed OnePlus to refund the sum of Rs. 40,999/- to the Complainant. Further, OnePlus and its service centre were directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 8,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 6,000/- as litigation costs. Case Title: Manoj Kumar vs The Office Head One Plus Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Case Number: 287/2024 Advocate for the Complainant: Sathvik Aiyanna M.A Advocate for the Respondent: None (Ex-parte) Click here to download Order/Judgement

Failure To Rectify Persistent Issues With Defective Mobile Phone, Mysore District Commission Holds One Plus, Its Service Centre Liable

Smita Singh

Tags