BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 31.03.2016

Date of Order :03.12.2020

PRESENT:

Shri. V.S.Manulal President-in-charge

Shri. V.Ramachandran Member

Smt.Sreevidhia T.N. Member

CC.No.200/2016

Between

O R D E R

V.Ramachandran, Member

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant in this case is working as Assistant Manager in India Info line Housing Finance Ltd. who alleges that he had purchased a Vivo V1 mobile of IMEI No. 867725029322652 from the 3^rd opposite party on 24.11.2015. The price of the product was Rs.15,500/-. The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the product and the 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service provider. After few days from the date of purchase, the mobile set showed some complaints. While dialing contact numbers in key pad it showed “unfortunately contacts has stopped and the dial pad has been inactive and closed and overheating” without SIM. Therefore, the complainant had approached the 3^rd opposite party and since there was no positive reply, the complainant had approached the 2^nd opposite party to cure the defects of the mobile. It was informed by the 2^nd opposite party that there are defects in the mobile set which could not be rectified by uploading the software of the mobile afresh. The mobile returned to the complainant after uploading the software. But again the mobile set showed the same complaint. As the technician of the 2^nd opposite party recommended for the upgradation of the software of the mobile, the complainant had given the mobile set with the 2^nd opposite party for uploading the new software. The fault reported by the 2^nd opposite party in the job sheet was “auto hang up during phone call” and the cause of the fault was recorded as “bad software”. After uploading the new software of the mobile, it was returned to the complainant and after two days the mobile hand set showed the same earlier defects. Moreover, it cannot be uploaded videos via Whats App. The complainant again approached the 2^nd opposite party and the fault reported in job card was “fault cause unknown”. The complainant had demanded to return the purchase value of the mobile phone. But the manager of the 2^nd opposite party obtained sanction from the 1^st opposite party and replaced it with a new mobile hand set. At the time of replacement, the manager of the 2^nd opposite party assured the complainant that the new replaced mobile set has no manufacturing defects. Unfortunately, after replacement of the new mobile hand set it also showed the same defects as earlier one. It is submitted that due to the defects of the mobile, the complainant could not contact his customers properly to meet the appointment on time and lost few of his genuine customers who were taken loans from other financing firms due to the lack of regular follow ups and thereby resulted in monetary loss and decrease in performance also. Thereafter, on 06.01.2016 the manager of the 2^nd opposite party informed that they obtained special sanction from the head office and they had issued a new upgraded ViVo V1 Max with IMEI No. 867742029107090 with the complainant. The complainant further submits that the new mobile set also shows the same earlier defects. Therefore, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party to return the price of the mobile set with compensation for the loss, mental agony and hardships. Since there was no response from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, the complainant sent a legal notice on 02.02.2016 to all the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile with compensation. But the 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties admitted the purchase, the defects and replacement of the mobile phone in their reply. Though the 3^rd opposite party accepted the legal notice but not responded. The complainant submitted that the mobile hand set shows the technical failure. Hence the complainant approached before the Hon’ble Commission seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.15,500/- to the complainant which he had spend the amount towards the purchase of the mobile hand set and also direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with 12% interest along with other reliefs.

2) Notices were sent to the opposite parties from this Commission and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed their vakalath and version in response to the notice received by them. The 3^rd opposite party did not respond to the notice issued from this Commission and set ex-parte.

3) Version of the opposite parties

In the version filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 which is analyzed together for the sake of convenience states that the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party saying some defects of the mobile phone and the 2^nd opposite party serviced the hand set by upgrading the software and the issue was resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant again visited the service centre of the opposite party on 30.12.2015 and stated that it is unable to upload whatsap videos in the mobile phone. The 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that the mobile hand set entrusted with them for a day for further checking. But the complainant did not accept it. Thereafter, on 31.12.2015 the complainant again visited the service centre and complained the same complaint. It is contended that after verifying the handset they could not find any defects in the gadget. Despite there is no defects in the mobile handset, the opposite party determined to replace the handset with a fresh handset of the same model. The complainant again visited the 2^nd opposite party’s service centre on 02.01.2016 with the same complaint. It was found that the complaint basically was regarding the synchronization of his “Google” accounts with the mobile phone and where some particular contacts in his ‘gmail’ data was corrupted and was causing the trouble to the handset. It was described to him regarding the functioning of the mobile handset and there were no defects and complainant was satisfied with the same.

The complainant again visited the service centre opposite party on 04.01.2016 for complaining about the new handset. As the customer was not satisfied with the model “V 1 Max” (advanced version) was replaced by the opposite party to avoid further disputes. The allegations made by the complainant is either without fully understanding the functioning of the mobile handset provided to him or with ulterior motives in order to extort advance version of the mobile handset on his each visit. The opposite party stated that there is no complaints about the handset, the hand set is perfectly functioning and there are no complaints. There was no deficiency or defect in the mobile phone supplied to the complainant by the opposite party. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed almost same version and has been analyzed.

4) Evidence in this case consists of documentary evidences produced by the complainant marked as Exbt.A1 to A10. No oral evidence on the side of the complainant. No oral or documentary evidences from the side of the opposite parties.

5) On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for consideration

(i) Whether the complainant has sustained to any deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties?

(ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs or compensation from the opposite parties?

(iii) Costs of the proceedings?

6) Issue No. (i)

It is admitted the fact that the complainant had purchased Vivo V1 Mobile phone on 24.11.2015 from the 3^rd opposite party who is the authorized service provider of the 1^st opposite party. The mobile hand set showed some defects and the complainant approached the opposite party for rectification of the defects. Though the opposite party had rectified the defects of the mobile phone, the complainant again and again approached the opposite parties on various occasions complaining about the fault of the phone. It could also be seen that the opposite party had made earnest efforts from their side to rectify the defects of the phone and the opposite party had even given a new phone of the same model to the complainant in lieu of the defective phone. The complainant had again approached the opposite party demanding for refund of the cost paid by the complainant for the purchase of the mobile phone. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone from the opposite party on 14.11.2015. The opposite party had given a new mobile phone to the complainant in the place of the mobile phone purchased by the complainant and again the complainant alleged defects in the new one supplied by the opposite party. Therefore, it is to be attributed that the reason for recurring defects found in the mobile handset is to be ensured either as fault of the phone or due to mishandling of usage from the side of the complainant. The service experts of the opposite party and the technicians who upgraded the software had also found that the complainant is basically causing the synchronization of his “Google” accounts with the mobile phone and where some particular contacts in his g-mail data was erupted that was causing the trouble to the handset as per the version of the opposite party. Therefore, the opinion of an expert for ensuring and reaching into a concrete result and reason in this case which was the liability of the complainant to do with. The complainant had not made any efforts for an expert examination on the new mobile phone in lieu of the phone that he had purchased. The complainant had not made any efforts to get an expert to examine the handset and produced the expert’s opinion before the Commission to the effect that the phone is having any manufacturing or an inherent software defects which is leading to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party. Hence the point No. (i) is found against the complainant. Hence the complainant had failed to prove the contentions in the complaint.

7) Issue Nos. (ii) and (iii)

Having found the issue No. (i) against the complainant, we do not have analyzed the issue Nos. (ii) and (iii).

In the result, the complaint is found liable to be dismissed and the complaint is accordingly dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 3^rd day of December 2020.

Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

V.S.Manulal, (President-in-charge)

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits: Nil

….............…

am