Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/467/2021

Gagandeep Jolly - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Paras Chugh

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Gagandeep Jolly S/o late Sh. D. Jolly, r/o 1364-B, MIG, Phase 10-SAS Nagar, Mohali.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Vivo Mobile India Private Limited having its registered office at 10^th &11^th floor, Palm Springs Plaza (Complex) Village Wazirabad, Sector 54, Gurugram Gurgaon HR 122003 Email:
2. Virat Kohli, Indian Cricket Player r/o DLF City Phase-I, Block-C, Gurugram and Uttam Nagar, West Delhi, Delhi 110059. (complaint against OP No.3 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.2.2023)

 .  … Opposite Parties

Per surjeet kaur, Member

1. Briefly stated, the complainant impressed with the advertisement of the OPs purchased a handset VIVO V21e on 24.6.2021. It is alleged that from the inception of its purchase the handset in question suffering from manufacturing defect such as low volume in the ear piece, sudden unresponsive screen and sudden blackout of the screen.  On 1.7.2021 the complainant lodged complaint with the service centre and the official of OP No.1 informed the complainant that the issue being faced by the complainant are because of faulty software and directed the complainant to drop it with the service centre and they will rectify the same. Accordingly the complainant on 3.7.2021 went to customer care centre of OP No.1 and they put the handset to extreme test measures including software updates and accordingly when the problem could not be resolved by rectifying the software, the official of OP No.1 decided to replace the handset and accordingly the same was replaced by them but to the utter dismay of the complainant he still faced the same issues over again on the replaced phone.  The complainant immediately on 7.7.2021 raised the same issue with the service centre and they told the complainant that they would replace the phone within 7-10 working days.  The complainant having left with no option sent email dated 10.7.2021 to OP No.1 to refund the invoice amount but till date no response was received by the complainant. Ultimately on 13.7.2021 the complainant deposited the handset with the OP No.1 with the intention to get the refund of the money but they told the complainant that they would only rectify the issue and on 17.7.20121 intimated the complainant via SMS that the issue has been resolved and he can collect the phone. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
2. The Opposite Party No.1 in its reply stated that OP No.1 as a good will gesture and on the request of the complainant had replaced the 1^st handset with the 2^nd handset on 6.7.2021 to the complete satisfaction of the complainant.  The complainant thoroughly checked the 2^nd handset and was completely satisfied with the services provided by OP No.1 but on 13.7.2021 the complainant once again raised false and frivolous allegations with respect to the 2^nd phone wherein the complainant alleged that the 2^nd phone  was facing similar manufacturing defects as were in the 1st handset. Thus, the 2^nd handset was deposited with OP No.1 on 7.7.2021 and after complete scrutinization of the same OP No.1 observed that  the 2^nd phone was fully functional/operational and was ready to be delivered to the complainant but the complainant with a intention to escalate the issue further did not accept/collect the 2^nd handset from the service centre of OP No.1. It is averred that the complainant has not placed on record any technical report substantiating the fact that the 2^nd handset was suffering from manufacturing defect.  It is averred that the grievance of the complainant has already been dealt with by OP No.1 by replacing the smartphone on 6.7.2021 and there is no technical/manufacturing defect in the 2^nd phone which was replaced to the complete satisfaction of the complainant.  Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP. All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
3. OP No.2 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 12.01.2022 it was proceeded against exparte.
4. Complaint against OP No.3 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.2.2023.
5. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
6. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
8. The sole grouse of the complainant is that he purchased one handset vivo V21e on 24.6.2021, which was found to be defective and therefore, the same was once replaced by the OPs but again the same  issue cropped up in the alleged replaced handset and the complainant approached the service centre but till date neither refund nor replacement has been made by the OPs and the handset is still lying in the possession of service centre of OP No.1. till date, hence, the present complaint.
9. The stand taken by the OP No.1 is that as a goodwill gesture the handset was once replaced with another brand new handset but again the complainant has deposited the replaced handset with the service centre of OP No.1 on 7.7.2021 and till date the complainant has not come forward to collect the same despite the fact that there is no defect  in the handset in question.  Hence, the complaint deserves dismissal.
10. It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant paid amount of Rs.24,990/- on 24.6.2021 which as per demand of the complainant was once replaced by the OPs but in the replaced handset also the complainant faced problem and hence the same was deposited with the service centre of OP No.1.
11. During the proceedings of the present case vide order dated 17.3.2023 the case was fixed for amicable settlement on 22.3.2023  but the same could not be settled. Thus, on the said date the case was reserved for orders.
12. Thorough examination of record shows that admittedly the handset in question is lying in the possession of service centre of OP No.1  for repair consequently, the complainant had to buy another handset for his use, which caused harassment to him.  It is very unfortunate that the complainant who purchased the handset after paying his hard earned money could not use the same due to defect therein.  The OPs have failed to place on record any documentary proof that the same was defect free. Moreover, any prudent person who purchase an expensive handset would never unnecessarily deposit the same with the service cetnre for repair. Hence, there is deficiency on the part of the OPs

13. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs No.1&2 are directed as under:-

1. to refund the invoice price of Rs.24,990/-  of the handset in question to the complainant with interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing the complaint Till realization
2. to pay composite amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment and  towards costs of litigation.

14.      This order be complied with by the OPs No.1&2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization.
15.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.