Delhi

New Delhi

CC/156/2022

Richa Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

13 Sep 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No. CC/156/2022   

IN THE MATTER OF:

RICHA JINDAL

R/o B-7/86/1, DDA Flats,

Safdarjung Enclave,

New Delhi – 110029.

…. Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. VIVO MOBILE INDIA PVT. LTD.

10, Deep Cinema Rd, Ashok Vihar-II,

Pocket B 3, Phase 2, Ashok Vihar,

New Delhi – 110052.

 

2. JAINA MOBILE PLAZA

12A/2, Yusuf Sarai Market,

New Delhi – 110017.

…. Opposite Parties

 

Quorum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Sh. Bariq Ahmad, Member

Sh. Shekhar Chandra, Member

                                                                   Date of Institution   : 08.07.2022

                                               Date of Order   : 13 .09 .2023   

 

ORDER

BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

1. The present complaint has been filed under the Consumer Protection Act,  (in short CP Act) against Opposite Parties (in short OP`s) alleging deficiency of services.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 20.01.2020 the complainant visited to OP No.2 for purchasing a Mobile Phone. The representative of the OP No.2 suggested the mobile being Model No.51 PRO manufactured by OP No.1. The representative of OP No.2 also provides one-year manufacturing warranty/guarantee for the above handset, trusted in the statements of the O.P. No.2, and immediately purchased the same and paid an amount of Rs.19,500/- to the O.P. No.2, which issued the bill dated 20.01.2020 against the payment.

3. It is alleged that within two months of purchasing the above handset became faulty i.e. hanging & heating problem, hence on 14.03.2020 the complainant contacted to the service center of the OP No. 1 situated at Shop No. 53, Mini Market, Palika Bazar, Connaught Place, New Delhi, Delhi 110001 but where they refuse to even check the mobile and they advised to contact to any other service center for repair the same. Now the above service center is closed.
4. It is further alleged that after that unfortunately the entire country gone under lock down due to COVID-19 hence the complainant could not contacted to the service center for a long.
5. It is further alleged that recently in the month of the May-2022 the complainant contacted to the Service Center of the OP No 1 situated at Laxmi Nagar but where available officials clearly refuse to entertain the complainant stating the phone is out of guarantee/warranty. It is true that technically the phone is out of guarantee but due to Pandemic Situation the complainant could not rushed the different service centers of the OP No.1.
6. It is alleged that the complainant contacted to the service center of the OP No.1 well within time but they refused to check and in this regard the complainant also sent a written complaint to the OP No.1. That the quality of the handset is very poor. The above handset must be replaced or take back by the OP jointly or severally immediately as the OP No.1 through OP No.2 provided the standard guarantee for one year & the same was became faulty within the guarantee period.
7. It is further alleged that the act & activities of the OP`s are clearly unfair trade practices. Alleging deficiency is service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP`s the complaint filed the complaint and sought the following reliefs:-

i).  To Refund the amount of Rs.19,500/- alongwith interest @ 24% PA to the complainant immediately, which the complainant paid to the OP No.2 at the time of purchasing the handset in question.

ii). The OP`s jointly or severally may kindly be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony & pain.

iii). To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

iv). Any other or further order (s), which may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in the interest of justice.

8. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP`s, pursuant to which OP-2 entered appearance on 18.11.2022, but not filed any reply/written statement and OP-1 was served on 08.02.2023, as Op`s have not filed written statement within statuary period their defense struck off.
9. The  complainant filed his ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of the complaint. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of invoice/bill No. 2019-20/4706 dated 20.01.2020 for purchase of mobile Vivo model no. 51 PRO for Rs.19,500/-. Copy of complaint and courier receipt dated  20.05.2022.
10. We have perused the ex-parte evidence filed alongwith the documents relied upon by the complainant. In his ex-parte evidence, the complainant has reiterated the averments and contentions made in the complaint.
11. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. What is the use of such goods or article if it loses its utility within a period of one month or a period of one year. No trader or the manufacturer can take the shelter under the grab of warranty card if the article or the goods is later on found to be suffering from manufacturing inherent defects. The objects of the Statute Under The Consumer Protection Act,1986 is to safeguard the interests of the consumers against the unscrupulous manufacturers or traders selling such sub-standard or defective goods or against the provider of service who are not providing service and not maintaining the standard of service.
12. Hence, the act of OPs in selling a substandard product, non-providing proper after sale services and forcing the complainant in the present unnecessary litigation proves deficiency in services on their part and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.
13. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1 is  directed as under :-

1. To refund amount of ₹19,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization, and O.P. No.1 to take back the mobile in question at the time of payment.
2.  ii. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. iii. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

13. This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it/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, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

14. A copy of order be sent to all the parties free of cost. The order be also uploaded in the website of the Commission (www.confonet.nic.in).

File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of the order.

 

(Poonam Chaudhry)

President

 

(Bariq Ahmad)                                                                                                                       (Shekhar Chandra)

    Member                                                                                                                                     Member