BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 264 of 2023.                                                                      

                                                               Date of Institution :    03.07.2023

                                                          Date of Decision   :    09.05.2024.

Sukhwinder Singh son of Shri Sawarn Singh, resident of Sacha Sauda Mohalla, Ward No.10 Rania, District Sirsa.

                                                                                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. M/s Popli Enterprises, Main Bazar, Rania, District Sirsa through its owner namely Nanak Chand Popli, Contact No. 94163-51686, 99929-91522.

2. Vivo Service Center, Near Main Post Office, Sirsa 125055 through its authorized person. Contact No. 98178-31385.

3. Vivo Mobile Head Office Center, INDIA Pvt. Ltd. (Head Office) in Gurgaon Sector 44, Gurgaon through authorized person contact no. +91-124-4193388.

                                                                          ...…Opposite parties.

                   Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.     

                SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………MEMBER

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Opposite parties already exparte.                                                                                                                          

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (herein after referred as OPs).

2.                In brief, the case of complainant is that on 22.12.2022 complainant had purchased one mobile of Vivo 16 for an amount of Rs.13,000/- after finance from Bajaj Finance but no IMEI number was written on the bill and op no.1 made cutting on the serial number through pen and as such ops have committing fraud and forgery with the complainant due to which his mobile is not repaired despite warranty period. It is further averred that complainant did not use camera of the mobile in excess but when he operated the camera of mobile in April, 2023 it was not working upon which he visited to op no.1 and op no.1 asked him that he has to pay an amount of Rs.5500/- and sent his mobile to mobile care. That complainant told him that he has purchased the mobile just four months ago and his mobile is still within warranty period and how they can take charge from him but up no.1 did not give any satisfactory reply. It is further averred that on 27.06.2023 he received a phone from op no.2 care center and they stated that part of the camera has come and asked him to come and to get changed the said part but when he asked about warranty of the mobile they again stated that he has to pay Rs.5500/- and only then his mobile will be repaired and refused to repair the mobile without payment of R.5500/-. It is further averred that in this way ops are not repairing the mobile of complainant despite warranty period and have caused unnecessary harassment to him by selling a defective mobile. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops. Op no.1 did not appear despite notice and as such op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.

4.                Ops no.2 and 3 initially appeared through their representative and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant himself was keen/ interested to buy the said mobile phone and thereafter after checking with satisfaction bought the said phoe. The op had provided warranty card to the complainant which was valid for the period of one year from the date of purchase. The op had assured that as per the warranty card, the said phone was under the warranty period of one year and op assured that for any inbuilt- manufacturing defect and for defects as mentioned under the terms and conditions, the op would provide service without charging any cost for the same. The op had never assured for providing service for any of the defect/ damage in the said phone. It is further submitted that complainant never approached to op no.1 for removing the defect of mobile and never visited service centre for repairing the handset. The op no.1 never sent his handset to op no.2 for removing its mobile camera problem. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

5.                The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5

6.                When the case was fixed for evidence of ops no.2 and 3, none appeared on their behalf and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

7.                From the tax invoice dated 22.12.2022, it is evident that on 22.12.2022 complainant had purchased the mobile in question from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.13,000/- but there is cutting against Sr. number of the mobile in question. The complainant is alleging defect of camera of mobile within warranty period of one year and has filed the present complaint on 03.07.2023 i.e. within seven months of purchase of mobile in question because ops have failed to remove the defect in the mobile in question despite warranty period of one year. So it is proved on record that major defect of camera of mobile occurred within warranty period of one year and ops were under legal obligation to provide after sales service to the complainant within warranty period and to remove the said defect without any costs and as such demand of Rs.5500/- as repair charges made by ops is wrong and is not justified. The ops no.2 and 3 despite appearance have failed to prove on record that there is no defect in the mobile in question of complainant and ultimately they also opted to be proceeded against exparte. Since there is major defect in the mobile in question of complainant and ops have failed to redress the grievance of complainant, therefore, complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.13,000/- from ops.

8.                In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make refund of the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.13,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to the amount of Rs.13,000/- from ops alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We further direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant will have to deposit the mobile in question with ops/ service center against proper receipt. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.  

Announced :                            Member      Member                          President,

Dated: 09.05.2024.                                                                  District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                            Redressal Commission, Sirsa.