Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 489.
Instituted on : 11.10.2018.
Decided on : 06.05.2019.
Lalit Hooda son of Sh. Ved Pal Hooda, Resident of 923/9, Vishal Nagar, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Vaishno Communication, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Civil Road-Rohtak through Prop/Partner/Authorized Person. (Seller of Mobile).
2. Vivo Mobile India Private Ltd., TEC-1 & TEC-2, World Trade Centre, Noida Plot No. TZ-13A, Techzone (IT Park), Greater Noida-201308 through its Managing Director (Manufacturer of Mobile).
3. Vigour Mobile India Private Ltd., SCF 23, First Floor, Civil Road, Near Indus India Bank-Rohtak through Prop/Partner/Authorized Person. (Service Centre).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the complainant had purchased a Vivo V9 youth mobile phone bearing IMEI/Sr. No.86888831540759 for an amount of Rs.18900/-, manufactured by respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 is its service centre. It is alleged that from the date of its purchase, the mobile in question started giving problems like “network problem, hanging, heating, auto call disconnect, charging and incoming call issues etc.” The complainant contacted the service centre of company i.e. respondent No.3, but respondent No. 3 returned back the mobile in question without any repairing/adjustment and without issuing any job card. That on 17.09.2018 and 27.09.2018, the complainant again visited the service centre with the same complaint regarding the mobile in question and then the complainant insisted for job card and respondent No.3 issued the same. It is further alleged that on 03.10.2018, the complainant visited the office of respondent No.3 and again requested for repair of the mobile or in alternate to replace the mobile set, but all in vain. 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 Rs.18,900/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and also to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply have submitted that the mobile in question did not have any manufacturing defect or inbuilt issue at the time of purchase, as the sane was duly checked and accepted by the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant had visited the respondent no.3 on dated 18.09.2018 and stated that the mobile is having some issue while using mic, internet and hangs while using any application. That the respondent No. 3 duly accepted the said phone and provided a job sheet to the complainant and the said phone was returned on the next day i.e. 18.09.2018 after a thorough check up and complainant was informed that there has been no issue in the phone and this fact was also mentioned in the job sheet dated 17.08.2018. It is further submitted that on 27.09.2018, when the complainant again visited to the respondent No. 3 and again stated that the mobile in question is having network and heating issues etc. then the respondent No. 3 kept the mobile in question and duly checked and returned the same to the complainant on the next day i.e. 28.09.2018. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3 stated that there has been no issues/faults in the phone and the software was duly updated by respondent No. 3. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties No. 1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and has closed his evidence on dated 08.03.2019. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on dated 01.04.2019.
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 the parties it is observed that complainant had purchased the mobile set on 08.06.2018 and as per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 17.09.2018 and job sheet Ex.C3 dated 27.09.2018, there were defects in the mobile set i.e. “network issue, heating and hanging issues” which could not be removed by the opposite parties within warranty period. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such complainant is entitled for the price of mobile set and opposite party No.2 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set in question to the complainant.
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 Rs.18900/- (Rupees eighteen thousand nine hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.10.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving of awarded amount.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.05.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
