Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/462/2019

Smt. B.V. Sandya - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, - Opp.Party(s)

Thippeswamy N

18 Dec 2020

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:07/08/2019

DISPOSED      ON:18/12/2020

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC. NO:462/2019

DATED: 18^th December 2020

PRESENT :-     Smt. H.N. MEENA.                                …. PRESIDENT

                                B.A., LL.B.,               

                             Smt. B.H. YASHODA                  ....  LADY MEMBER

                     B.A., LL.B.,

                               Smt. B.U. GEETHA.                                       …. MEMBER

                               M.COM. LLB. P.G.D.C.L.P

 

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Smt. B.V. Sandya, W/o Santhosh Kumar K.N. Aged about 32 Years, Computer Teacher R/o 6th Cross, IUDP Layout, Chitradurga.   (Rep., by Sri. N. Thippeswamy. Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	1. The Managing Director, Vivo India Private Limited, Tec-1 and TEC-2, Okhla Industrial Area, World Trade Center, Noida Plot No.TZ-31A, Techzone CIT Park, Noida -2011308.   (OP.1 Ex-parte)   2.The Authorized Service Center For Vivo Mobiles, Represented by it’s Proprietor, OPP., to Vasavi Mahal Ist Floor, Beside to Federal Bank, Chitradurga.   (Rep., by Sri. R.K. Govindaraju for OP.2 Advocate)   3. The Proprietor/Manger, Poorvika Mobiles, Near Vanigotra Complex, B.D. Road, Chitradurga.   (OP.3 Ex-parte)

 

 

Pronounced on 18^th December 2020.

Written by Smt.  B.U. GEETHA.....MEMBER.

ORDERS

1.      The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops alleging unfair trade practice in selling defective mobile hand set to the complainant. Hence prays for direction against Ops to replace the defective handset with new one or to reimburse the mobile amount of Rs. 17,990/- along with the compensation of Rs. 45,000/- for unfair trade practice.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint is that, complainant had purchased the one New 4G. mobile i.e. Vivo V.9 Pro hand set IME No.860999047330818 on 08/11/2018 from OP.3.  After 30 days from the date of  purchasing the mobile hand set, complainant finds defects in the said mobile handset, i.e. overheating, not charging properly, hanging when using the internet, camara not working properly, not hearing the voice at time using the outgoing and incoming calls. For that, complainant informed the above defects to the Op.2. Op.2 stated that, they are not responsible under warranty and not rectify the said problems in free service and he stated, that, complainant has to bear the repair charges of Rs. 5,000/-  then only he has to rectify the defective VivoV9 Pro mobile hand set. In this regard, complainant got issued legal notice to the Opponents. The said notice served on all Ops. But they have not complied with the demands of legal notice. Therefore Ops committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service towards the complaint.

3.      Hence complainant prays for direction against Ops to replace the defective mobile handset with new one or to repay the amount of mobile hand set along with the compensation etc.,

4.      Notice issued by this Hon’ble Commission against Op.1 to OP.3 was duly served, but Op.1 and Op.3 have not appeared before this Hon’ble Commission to take any defense. Hence OP.1 and Op.3 placed Ex-parte. OP.2 has appeared through his counsel and filed his version.

5.      Op.2 in his version contended that, complaint is not maintainable   therefore frivolous capricious vexatious and complaint is barred by jurisdiction.  Further complainant stated that, complainant never approached the Office of the Op.2 she has contacted the Op.2 through phone only. If the complainant produced the mobile, the Office of Op.2 is ready to repair the mobile.

6.      Therefore Op.2 has not made any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service towards the complaint. Hence Op.2 prays to dismiss the complaint.

7.      The complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex-A1 to Ex-A-4 and Op.2 filed affidavit evidence no documents marked.

8.       Arguments heard.

The points that arise for our determination are;

1. Whether the complainant proves that deficiency of service on the part of opponents?

2. Whether the complainant proves that he is entitled for the relief sought?

3. What order?

9.      Our finding on the above points are as under;

          Point No.1: In the affirmative

          Point No2: affirmative

          Point No3: As per final order.

                                                          ::REASONS::

10.    Point No.1 and 2 :- It is true that as per Ex A.1 cash paid receipt. Complainant had purchased 4G. mobile Vivo V9 Pro handset on 08/1/2018 from Op.3 by paying Rs. 17,990/-.

11.    As per Ex A-2 the complaint got issued legal notice dated 09/07/2019, in which complainant called upon Ops to reimburse amount of mobile handset of Rs. 17,990/- or to replace the mobile handset with new one along with the compensation etc., The said notice is duly served on Op.1 to  Op.3. But they have failed to complied with the said legal notice. Even Op.1 and Op.3 have not appeared before this Hon’ble Commission to defense their case.  In order to avoid the replacement and reimbursement of the amount, Op.1 and Op.3 have not replied to the legal notice.

12.    Therefore we consider Op.1 to Op.3 have rendered unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in selling defective mobile handset to the complainant. Op.3 is being the seller of the mobile hand set, Op.1 is the manufacturer of his mobile hand set are liable to replace the defective mobile handset with new one or they are liable to returned the mobile hand set amount of Rs. 17,990/- to the complainant. Further Op.1 to Op.3  are liable to pay compensation amount of  Rs. 2000/- each for unfair trade practice and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- each to the complainant. As such for the above said reasons we answer point No.1 and 2 in affirmative.

                                                Order

          The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

Op.1 is the manufacturer and Op.3 is the seller are jointly and severally liable to replace the mobile hand set with new one having no defects or to refund, the mobile hand set amount of Rs. 17,990/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.  

OP.1 to Op.3 are further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- each towards  unfair trade practice and litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/- each to the complainant. It is further ordered that, the OP No. 1 to 3 are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

The assistant registrar is directed to send free copies of this order to the all the parties free of cost within a week from today.

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 18^th December 2020.)

 

 

 

 (B.H. Yashoda)                (B.U. GEETHA)                                        (H.N. Meena)                                                          

    Member                            MEMBER                                           President.

ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:-Complainant by filing affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Invoice dated 08/11/2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	Legal notice
03	Ex-A-3:-	Postal receipts
04	Ex.A-4:-	Acknowledgment

 

 

DW-1: Sri. Manjunath S/o Ishwar, Manager, Weiwo Telcom services Private Limited,  by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP No. 2 Nil

 

 

 

                               

 

MEMBER                                 MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

  

 

Kms.