Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 456.
Instituted on : 19.09.2018.
Decided on : 25.03.2019.
Arun, age 25 years, son of Sh. Pawan Garg, Resident of House No. 855/17, Near Mahajanan Padav, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Vaishno Communication, Chotu Ram Chowk, Civil Road, Rohtak, Haryana-124001, through its Proprietor.
- Vivo Mobile India Private Limited, Plot No. 54, Third Floor, Delta Tower, Sector-44, Gurgaon-122003.
3. Vigour Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., SCF 23, 1st Floor, Civil Road, Near Induslnd Bank, Rohtak-124001.
………….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
Present: Sh. R.K. Jangra, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone Model Vivo V7+ from the respondent No. 1 vide invoice no.18496 dated 07.12.2017 for Rs.21,990/- with one year guaranty/warranty. It is alleged that since the said mobile set was giving lot of problems like hanging and switched off automatically, the same was brought in the knowledge of opposite party No. 1. On complaint, the respondent No. 1 advised the complainant to visit the office of opposite party No. 3 which is the authorized service center of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 3 deposited the mobile set on 07.08.2018 and 25.08.2018 with the assurance that the same shall be returned after repair/replace but after sometime opposite party No. 3 delivered the defective mobile set to the complainant. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.21,990/- towards the cost of mobile alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the phone was working properly and problem occurred in the phone was due to the mishandling of the phone. That after the first visit of the complainant on dated 07.08.2018, the opposite parties have provided instructions to use the said mobile phone but the complainant did not follow the same due to which the issues again occurred. That the phone did not had any manufacturing defect or inbuilt issue at the time of purchase. The issues started only after some certain damages caused by the complainant himself. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the opposite parties.
3. Complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 21.12.2018. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.R-1 closed his evidence on dated 05.03.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing both the parties, it is observed that complainant had purchased the mobile on 07.12.2017 and as per job sheets Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 defects such as hanging and switched off automatically problem appeared in mobile set within warranty period which is also admitted by the opposite parties in their written reply. As per opposite parties, they had repaired the mobile and the problem was resolved. But as per the complainant even after repairing the mobile phone, the mobile is defective and is not working properly and the same is within warranty period. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and opposite party No. 2 is liable to refund the price of mobile set in question after deduction of 30% depreciation on it as the complainant has used the mobile in question uninterruptedly for eight months.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No. 2 to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 30% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs. 15,393/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Three only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.09.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.03.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
