Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 486.
Instituted on : 21.08.2017.
Decided on : 17.05.2019.
Sachin Rohilla son of Sh. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, age 29 years, R/o Krishna Sewing Machine Works, Railway Road, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Madhvi Enterprises, Shop No. 1348/49-B, Chottu Ram Chowk, Rohtak.
2. Labquest Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Service Centre VIVO SCF 23, 1st Floor, Civil Road, Near Indusind Bank, Rohtak.
3. VIVO India Mobile Pvt. Ltd., Tech 2, World Trade Centre, Plot No. TZ13-A, Techzone I.T. Park, Greater Noida (U.P.), through its M.D.- 201308.
4. VIVO Customer Care Officer, K-96-B, Second Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi- 110024.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Manish Verma, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 exparte.
Sh.Amit Kumar for opposite party No. 3 & 4 in person.
ORDER
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that on 03.09.2016, he had purchased a mobile phone VIVO V3 Max having IMEI No. 860801031157376 from the opposite party No. 1 vide bill No. 8036 dated 03.09.2016 for Rs. 20,000/- with one year warranty and opposite party No. 2 is its authorized service center. It is alleged that from the very beginning of purchasing the said mobile phone, the same started creating problems in mother board, battery and hanging etc. That on 12.07.2017, the complainant visited the service center of said mobile, they submitted the mobile in question and issued a job sheet No. AINHR0103170700513 and having fault reported with software upgrade and mic abnormal work and return the mobile in question on the same day. It is further alleged that on 28.07.2017, the complainant visited again to the opposite party No. 2 with the same problems vide job sheet No. AINHR0103170701049 and also on 16.08.2017 and requested them to replace his mobile, but they refused the same. 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. 20,000/- towards the cost of mobile in question and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation alongwith Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No. 3 and 4 in their reply submitted that it is denied that the mobile in question was having battery issues, hanging and motherboard problem from the very beginning. If that would have been the case, then how the complainant complained on 12.07.2017 i.e. after almost 9 months of buying and using the mobile in question. It is further submitted that upon checking of the mobile in question, only minor software issue was found and the same needs to be updated, thus the mobile was kept and job card was issued. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 solve the mic issue and heating problems of the mobile in question without any charges under the warranty period vide job sheet No. AINHR0103170701049. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 had provided best of its services to the complainant and even provided/replaced all defective parts without any cost. It is further submitted that the opposite party is not bound to replace the mobile in question as the damage caused is due to the carelessness/mishandling of the mobile in question by the complainant himself and not due to any inherent defect from the beginning. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties No. 3 and 4 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite parties No. 3 and 4.
3. Whereas, opposite parties No. 1 and 2 failed to appear before the Forum, hence, opposite parties No. 1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.10.2017 passed by this Forum.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 22.02.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence on dated 26.03.2019.
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 03.09.2016 and as per job sheet Ex.CW3 to Ex.CW6 dated 12.07.2017, 28.07.2017, 16.08.2017 and 16.08.2017 respectively, there were defects in the mobile set i.e. “hanging issue, MIC abnormal work, handset heat during using, receiver not work 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. In this regard ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid down in IV(2007)CPJ 294 (NC) titled as Sony Ericsson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal, which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. As such complainant is entitled for the refund of price of mobile set after deduction of 40% depreciation on it as the complainant has used the mobile phone uninterruptedly for 9 months.
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 40% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.12000/-(Rupees twelve thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 21.08.2017 till its realization and shall also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two 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:
17.05.2019.
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
