Pranav B Prem

In a significant decision, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore, has held OnePlus Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized service centre liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The finding comes in the wake of repeated failures on their part to address recurring software and hardware defects in a mobile phone purchased by a consumer. The Commission observed that OnePlus, despite being a well-known technology brand, failed to live up to the expectations of a consumer who had faced persistent problems even after the replacement of a defective handset.

Also Read: No Service Tax Payable On Cartage Charges: CESTAT

The bench comprising Smt. A.K. Naveen Kumari (President), Sri Maruthi Vaddar (Member), and Smt. M.K. Lalitha (Member) delivered the judgment in Consumer Complaint No. 287/2024 filed by Manoj Kumar, a resident of Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore. The complainant had purchased a OnePlus 9R 5G smartphone with 256GB storage for a sum of Rs. 40,999 on 3rd October 2021 through Amazon. Initially, the device performed satisfactorily and met the consumer’s expectations. However, after a software update rolled out by the company, the phone began to suffer from severe malfunctions including frequent crashes, unresponsive applications, slowness, and screen display issues. These problems significantly impaired the usability of the phone and impacted the complainant’s ability to perform day-to-day tasks, both personal and professional.

According to the complainant, he approached the OnePlus service centre located in Mysore—run by Eesha Communications—to seek repairs. However, the centre informed him that they lacked the necessary spare parts, particularly for the screen replacement and software rectification. Instead of offering a proper repair or a replacement, the service centre offered a voucher of low value that could only be used to purchase another OnePlus device. The complainant was dissatisfied with this proposition, as it restricted his choices and effectively forced him to remain within the same brand ecosystem despite the unresolved issues he had already faced. The voucher, in his view, was not a remedy but an evasion of accountability.

Even after repeated follow-ups, OnePlus failed to provide any meaningful assistance. Ultimately, after sustained efforts and persistent requests, a replacement phone was given to the complainant on 23rd November 2023 by the same service centre. However, the replacement device began exhibiting the same defects within a short span of five to six months. Frustrated with the recurrence of the same issues, the complainant requested a full refund. However, his request was met with indifference. The service centre representative reportedly told him to "do whatever you want," a response the Commission later characterized as indicative of the company’s irresponsible and callous attitude toward consumer grievances.

The complainant then issued a legal notice on 18th June 2024, demanding a refund of the full purchase amount along with compensation. Despite the service of notice being duly acknowledged, both OnePlus and its service centre failed to respond or take any corrective action. As a result, the complainant was compelled to initiate formal proceedings before the District Commission.

During the course of the hearing, neither OnePlus nor its authorized service centre appeared before the Commission, and were therefore proceeded against ex-parte. The Commission accepted the complainant’s evidence and documents, including the purchase invoice, replacement bill, legal notice, and postal acknowledgments, all of which corroborated his claims. It also accepted the complainant’s testimony regarding the recurrence of defects in both the original and replacement phones, and the dismissive response from the service centre.

The Commission took serious note of the attitude exhibited by OnePlus and its representatives. It remarked that when a customer buys a phone from a reputed company like OnePlus, there is a legitimate expectation that the product will function properly, and that any post-purchase issues will be resolved professionally. However, the conduct of OnePlus, in the present case, failed to meet even the minimum standards of responsible after-sales service. The order noted, “Even after its replacement on 23.11.2023, the new phone continues to exhibit the same issues as the original one.” It further observed that the failure to resolve the issue, coupled with the arrogant dismissal of the refund request, was tantamount to deliberate harassment of the consumer.

The Commission emphasized that the complainant had made persistent efforts to resolve the matter amicably, including multiple visits to the service centre and several communications via calls and emails. However, OnePlus failed to engage constructively or offer a satisfactory solution. It was only after exhausting all options that the complainant approached the forum.

Also Read: Subscription, Redemption Of Mutual Funds Units Can’t Be Termed As Sale And Purchase Of Securities: CESTAT

Holding both the company and its service centre jointly and severally liable, the Commission found that their conduct amounted to a clear deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice. The forum directed that OnePlus and its authorized service centre refund the full amount of Rs. 40,999 to the complainant. The refund was to be made along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 23rd November 2023—the date the replacement phone was provided—till the date of payment. The Commission also awarded a further compensation of Rs. 8,000 to the complainant for mental agony and inconvenience caused due to the recurring defects and unprofessional service. Additionally, litigation expenses of Rs. 6,000 were awarded. The respondents were directed to comply with these directions within one month, failing which the amounts would carry higher rates of interest as specified in the order. The Commission also granted liberty to the complainant to initiate penal action under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in case of non-compliance.

Appearance

For the Complainant: Adv.Sathvik Aiyanna.M.A.

For the Respondents: Exparte

Cause Title: Manoj Kumar V. The Office Head One Plus Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case No: CC 287/2024

Coram:  Smt.A.K. Naveen Kumari [President],  Smt.M.K. Lalitha [Member], Sri. Maruthi Vaddar [Member]

[Read/Download order]