Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 576.
Instituted on : 22.11.2018.
Decided on : 04.10.2019.
Vinod(age 38 years) s/o Sh. Sat Narain R/o VPO Baliyana, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Maa Bhagwati Mobile Store, Gohana Road, Near Pappu Sweets, Rohtak-124001(Haryana).
- Manager/Authorized person, Vivo Service Centre, SCF 23, 1st Floor, Civil Road, Near Indusind Bank, Rohtak-124001, Haryana.
- Manager/Authorized person, Vivo Manufacturing unit Plot No.Tz-13A, Greater Noida, Noida-201310(Tech 2, World Trade Centre, Techzone I.T. Park).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sandeep Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sandeep Kataria Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Amit Kr.Chaudhary Advocate for opposite party No.2 &3
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a mobile phone of Vivo Company from the opposite party no.1 vide bill No.2627 dated 28.11.2017 for Rs.21990/-. That respondent no.1 is dealer of Vivo mobile and respondent no.2 is authorized service centre and respondent no.3 is manufacturer of Vivo. That the phone is not functioning properly from the very beginning as there are touch screen, display and charging problems in the handset in question. That complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 on 21.05.2018 and the phone was given after repair but after few months, the phone again hanged and lost network connectivity and complainant again visited the service centre on 22.10.2018 and it was told by the opposite party no.2 that the phone cannot be repaired as it was having a manufacturing defect. That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective mobile is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.21990/- towards the cost of mobile in question alongwith interest, Rs.11,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that it is correct that the complainant had purchased the mobile from the respondent no.1. That respondent no.1 has no duty about the repairing of the handset. In fact repairing is to be done by the service centre i.e. respondent no.2. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant through his nephew namely Nitin has visited the respondent no.2 on 21.05.2018 and on 22.10.2018 and thereby stated the issue in each of his visit that the phone was not being able to be charged and there was network connectivity issue. That after thorough inspection, the respondent no.2 found and established the problem i.e. the issue was occurred due to faulty USB cable thus, replaced the USB cable with new one and did not charge for the same as the same was within warranty period. That there was no fault in the mobile while it was received for the second time i.e. on 22.10.2018. That respondent never refused to provide any service to the complainant rather had provided proper and effective service to the complainant. That complainant is not entitled for any compensation and dismissal of complaint has been sought. Opposite party no.3 through his reply has re-iterated the version taken by the opposite party No.2 in its reply and has also prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and has closed his evidence on dated 21.05.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 failed to file any evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities and as such, evidence of opposite party No.1 was closed by the order dated 20.08.2019 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 & 3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed their evidence on dated 01.07.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant had purchased the mobile set on 28.11.2017 and as per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 21.05.2018, there was problem of charging and USB cable, which was replaced. But thereafter on 22.10.2018, there were problem of ‘handset heat up while standby mode, battery back low etc.” which could not be removed by the opposite parties within warranty period despite repeated repairs. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such complainant is entitled for the refund of price of mobile set after deduction of 50% depreciation on it as the complainant has used the mobile phone uninterruptedly for 5 months and again for 5 months after first repair.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 being manufacturer to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 50% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.11000/-(Rupees eleven thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 22.11.2018 till its realization and shall also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving of awarded amount.
7. Copy of this of and the order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.10.2019.
…………………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
