Failure To Replace Defective Phone Parts, Chandigarh District Commission Holds OnePlus And Its Service Provider Liable For Deficiency In Service

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held OnePlus and its service centre liable of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to provide a satisfactory solution to the genuine grievance of the Complainant for repair of the phone which was under warranty. The bench directed them to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 7,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by her. Brief Facts: Mrs. Shikha Saxena (“Complainant”) purchased a OnePlus mobile phone from Reliance Retail Ltd. for Rs.40,948/-. Later, while charging the phone, she observed a significant bulge in the battery, causing the phone's body to bend and the back glass panel to shatter. Upon approaching the OnePlus's service centre, the Complainant was shocked when the service centre quoted a price of Rs.28,000/- for repairs. The service centre attributed the damage to a fall. The Complainant made several communications with OnePlus, its service centre and Reliance Retail but didn't receive any satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against OnePlus, its service centre and Reliance Retail. In response, OnePlus and its service centre contested the complaint, asserting that the Complainant declined repairs after an inspection which revealed damage requiring motherboard and back cover replacement. It argued that the damage resulted from external force which made the product ineligible for warranty-based replacement or refund. It argued that the warranty excludes damage caused by external forces to the phone. Meanwhile, Reliance Retail contended that it bears no responsibility for refund, replacement, or defect rectification in the mobile phone. It asserted that any manufacturing defect liability rested solely with OnePlus, the manufacturer. Observations by the High Court: The District Commission held that the phone was under warranty, thereby, requiring the replacement of the motherboard for repairs by OnePlus. OnePlus and its service centre argued that an attempt was to amicably resolve the matter. The District Commission held that OnePlus and its service centre didn't provide any evidence to support their claim that they made efforts to resolve the issue with the Complainant. Therefore, the District Commission held that this lack of effort to settle the matter amicably constituted a deficiency in services and an engagement in unfair trade practices on the part of OnePlus and its service centre. The District Commission opined that since the Complainant used the handset without fault for several months, it cannot be concluded that it suffered from any manufacturing defect. Consequently, the District Commission directed OnePlus and its service centre to pay ₹ 20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and pay ₹ 7,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.

Failure To Replace Defective Phone Parts, Chandigarh District Commission Holds OnePlus And Its Service Provider Liable For Deficiency In Service

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Failure To Replace Defective Phone Parts, Chandigarh District Commission Holds OnePlus And Its Service Provider Liable For Deficiency In Service

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers