Haryana

Karnal

CC/32/2021

Bajinder Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deva Electronic World - Opp.Party(s)

16 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 32 of 2021

                                                          Date of instt.14.01.2021

                                                          Date of Decision 16.04.2021

 

Bajinder Sharma son of Shri Satpal Sharma resident of house no.2271, Sector 14-A, Chandigarh. Mobile no.9041408644.

                                                                                                                                                                        ……Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Deva Electronic World, 46, main road, Ram Nagar, Karnal.

2. Vigour Mobile India Private Limited, (VIVO mobile Service Center) SCO 112, 1^st floor, Old Tehsil Complex, Old G.T. Road, near Haryana photostat, Karnal.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:   Complainant in person.

                  Opposite parties exparte.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                  This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, on the averments that complainant has purchased a mobile handset VIVO-Y12 Model-vivo 1904 bearing IMEI no.866247040239170 and 2^nd IMEI no.866247040239162 from the opposite party (hereinafter referred as to OP) no.1 on 29.07.2020 for a sum of Rs.10,990/-, vide invoice no.2237 dated 29.07.2020. After sometime the said mobile set started giving so many problems such as display, hanging, touch, voice problem after disconnecting the call and background music play after disconnecting the call, heating problem etc. Complainant approached the OP no.1 for rectifying the defect in his mobile set. OP no.1 stated that it is a manufacturing defect. Thereafter, on asking of OP no.1 complainant approached the OP no.2 who is authorized service centre of the company for rectification of the defect from the mobile set in question. OP no.2 kept the mobile set for rectification of the defect and issued a job sheet and assured the complainant that the said mobile set will be set right but when complainant approached the OP no.2 to collect his mobile set from OP no.2 and found that the mobile set was not repaired by the OP no.2 and problems in the mobile set as it is.  Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs several times for repair of the mobile set or if the problems of the mobile set are not repairable then replace the same but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to replace the mobile set in question. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order of this Commission dated 07.04.2021.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of job sheet Ex.C2, copy of complaint made by the complainant to the company Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 07.04.2021 by suffering separate statement.

4              We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the documents placed on file carefully

5.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased one mobile set of VIVO company from OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.10,990/-.  After purchasing of the said phone, the mobile set started creating the problem of display, hanging, touch, voice problem after disconnecting the call and background music play after disconnecting the call, heating problem etc. The complainant contacted to the OP no.1 and narrated the aforesaid problem. OP no.1 sent the complainant to OP no.2 the authorized service centre of the company for repair of the mobile set. On asking of OP no.1 complainant approached the OP no.2, OP no.2 kept the mobile set but did not success to rectify the defect after their several efforts. In support of his allegations, complainant placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1A, copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of job sheet Ex.C2 and copy of complaints Ex.C3 to Ex.C6, vide which complainant had complained the company with regard to defect in the mobile set in question but there was no satisfactory response received by the complainant from the company. To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OPs did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus evidence of the complainant has gone completely unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

6.              It has been proved from the evidence lead by the complainant and documents placed on file that mobile set in question is having a manufacturing defect. During the warranty period, it was the duty of the OPs either to rectify the defects from mobile set of the complainant or to replace the same, but OP failed to do so. Hence, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service.

7.             As per the version of the complainant, he has purchased a new mobile, as mobile in question was having many problems from the very beginning and he has no need for replacing the mobile set in question and prayed for refunding cost of the mobile set.

8.             In view of the above observations, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.10,990/- as cost of the mobile to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the abovesaid amount. Complainant is also directed to handover the old mobile set alongwith accessories to the OPs on receiving the awarded amount. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:16.04.2021                                                                     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                         Member