Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/68/2020

Sandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Phone Studio & other - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs Harpreet Kaur Hunjan

25 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                            COMMISSION

                      FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                             

Consumer  Complaint No.	:	CC/68 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	19.10.2020
Date of Decision	:	25.04.2023

 

 

Sandeep Singh aged about 17 years son of Bhagwant Singh, resident of Guru Ramdas Nagar, Sanipur Road, Sirhind , Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

 

                                                                                                       …………....Complainant

 

                                                Versus

 

1. Phone Studio, old Anaj Mandi, Sirhnd-140406, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Proprietor Varinder Singh.
2. Vigour Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. Service Centre, SCO-41, Sector-3, Block-C, Post Office Road, opposite ICICI Bank, Mandi Gobindgarh (147301), Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.    
3. Vivo Mobile India Private Limited,  Address of the manufacturer, TEC-1&TEC-2, World Trade  Center Noida , Plot no.TZ-13A, Techzone ( IT Park), Greater Noida:201308 Uttar Pardesh, India through its Authorized Signatory.

 

..………....... Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019

Quorum

Sh. S.K. Aggarwal, President

Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

 

Present: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hunjan, counsel for complainant.

              Opposite party no.1 Ex-Parte vide order dated 10.12.2020

              Opposite party no.3 Ex-Parte vide order dated 26.8.2021.

              Sh.G.S.Azad, counsel for OP no.2.

   

The  complaint has been filed against the OPs (opposite parties)  under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act-2019 alleging deficiency in service with the prayer for giving direction to replace the defective mobile phone  with new one or to refund the amount of price of mobile i.e Rs.17,990/-  and  to pay Rs.50,000/-  as compensation on account of mental agony .

1. Complainant purchased a Vivo mobile Phone model SI4/128 from OP no.1 on 5.9. 2019 for Rs.17,990/.  Complainant  used Bajaj  finance Card  of his friend  Gurinder Singh to made the payment of bill. Therefore , bill was issued in the name of  Gurinder Singh . The OP no.1 gave the warranty of one year on above said  mobile Phone regarding  any technical, manufacturing or mechanical defect in the same..Within a year , some  defect occurred in mobile  set like  auto switch  off  and  hanging  problem. On 18.6.2020, the complainant approached OP no.1 and they told  the  complainant to visit the  service centre of said mobile company at Mandi Gobindgarh. Thereafter,  the complainant visited  the service centre   i.e OP no.2 and  they updated the software of the  mobile  in  question and assured the complainant that these problems will not occur again. But thereafter, the complainant again faced  said problems.  Complainant  several times visited the service  centre in the month of July , August , September & October , 2020. They  changed the motherboard and display of the mobile  but the  problem of said set is not properly cured.   Despite so many  requests, the OPs  neither  solved the problem of the said mobile  nor replaced the same. Hence this complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs through registered Post . OPs  l and 3  did not come forward to file  written version and they were proceeded against Ex-Parte vide order  10.12.2020 and 26.8.2021 respectively. OP no.2 appeared through his counsel and filed written version.
3. The OP no.2 filed written version raising legal objections that OP1  had issued  the bill  in the name of  Gurinder Singh thus the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs . As per  invoice,  Vivo mobile  company  gave warranty to customers for any manufacturing fault  in the mobile.  SVC engineer checked the mobile of complainant and found that there was not any manufacturing defect in mobile . Every time  complainant  visited service centre without any issue in mobile . The complainant wanted mobile set replacement  without any problem. 
4. The complainant in support of his complaint tendered in evidence his  affidavit Ex.CW1/1,  Ex.C1 the invoice dated 5.9.2019,   Ex.C2  detail of loan amount,  Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 loan installment detail, Ex.C5  to Ex.C9 Job sheet ,  ExC10 Delivery receipt, Ex.C11 Acknowledgement receipt  and closed his evidence.
5. In rebuttal ,the OP no.2 tendered in evidence , Ex.OP2/1 bill dated 5.9.2019,  Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/5  job sheets and closed his evidence.
6.   Heard. Entire record has been perused.
7. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased mobile phone of Vivo Company , model  no. S SI4/128 vide invoice no.894  dated 5.9. 2019 for amount  of Rs.17990/- from OP no.1 vide Ex.C1. OP no.2 has raised the  objection that  that the  complainant Sandeep Singh has no locus standi to file the present complaint . The bill  shows that mobile in question was purchased by one Gurinder Singh  not by the complainant vide Ex.OP2/2.  As per the definition of  Consumer   under Section  2(7) of C.P.A-2019 ,  Any user of such  good also falls under the Category of consumer .
8. From the perusal of the record on file, we find that there was problem of hanging  & auto switch off in the mobile set.  The job sheets prepared by the OPs which  have  been  brought  on record by complainant vide Ex.C5 to Ex.C11 clearly indicate that OPs were unable to resolve the issue time and again Job card clearly shows that mobile is defective one.  OPs failed to prove on record that  phone was not having any manufacturing defect rather its a consumer  induced defect  . Defect occurred during the warranty  period vide Ex.C1. The complainant had to undergo mental agony  as he was forced to visit the service centre of OPs repeatedly.
9. As  a corollary of our above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed.  OPs no.1 , 2 , 3 are held  jointly & severally liable for deficiency in service. The OPs no.1 and 2 are directed as under:- [a]  To  refund amount of Rs.17,990/-  to the complainant along with  interest @ 9% P.A.  from the date of filing of complaint within 30  days , failing which interest @ 12% shall be payable.  Complainant is directed to  return the said mobile phone in question to the OPs  simultaneously

[b] To Pay Rs.10000/- as compensation formental agony and harassment .

    Compliance of the order be made by the OPs no.1 , 2 and 3 within30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the above said amount through legal process. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to pandemic of Covid-19 and Paucity of staff . Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and the OPs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.   

Pronounced 25 April 2023.

                                                           

                                                                      (S.K. Aggarwal)

                                                                      President

                                                                     

    

                                                                             (Shivani Bhargava)

                                                                              Member

 

                                                                             ( Manjit Singh Bhinder )

                                                                                      Member