| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 200 of 1.6.2018 Decided on: 22.10.2020 Rahul Kamboj aged 42 years son of Sh.Jagdish Kamboj, resident of House No.554, Hira Bagh, Rajpura Road, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Vivo Exclusive Service Center, situated at National Shopping Complex, Hide Market, SCO 22, Near Nandan Cinema Chowk,Amritsar through its Managing Director.
- Service Centre of Vivo Exclusive Service Center, at 37-C,Mansahia Colony, 21 Number Phatak, Patiala through its Manager.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Rahul Kamboj,complainant in person. Sh.Rishi Sharma,Adv. counsel for OPs No.1&2. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Rahul Kamboj (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Vivo Exclusive Service Center and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
- The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Vivo Mobile phone Model V5Plus from Seema Electronics, Patiala on 19.8.2017 vide bill/Invoice No.075 for an amount of Rs.23,000/- with the warranty of one year in case of any manufacturing defect in the mobile.
- It is averred that since the date of purchase, the mobile is giving so many problems i.e. heating, signal missing automatically switched off etc. The complainant approached the service center i.e. OP No.2 on 16.5.2018 for getting removed the defects occurred in the mobile. The OP No.2 did not remove the defects and complainant gave a note on the job sheet No.AINPB0104180500466 not satisfied. Again the complainant approached OP No.2 for removal of defects in the mobile phone on 22.5.2018.The OP No.2 replaced the motherboard but the defects were not removed by it.
- It is averred that upon receiving the call from the company on 28.5.2018, the complainant approached OP No.2 but the Incharge of OP No.2 could not remove the manufacturing defect in the mobile. The complainant made a call from Toll Fee Number 18001023388 on 30.5.2018 but no satisfactory reply was given. In this way the OPs are harassing the complainant which caused him huge mental agony, tension. Thus there is deficiency in service and mal practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer that the complaint be accepted by giving direction to the OPs to pay price of the cost of mobile set to the complainant; to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, torture, harassment and humiliation etc.caused to him; to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation with any other additional relief if deemed fit.
- Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply.In the reply the OPs raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is false, vexatious and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.
The OPs also made submissions in the preliminary objections by admitting that the complainant purchased mobile phone of ModelV5 Plus with IMEI No.863855034625593 on 19.8.2017 with which the complainant had no issue for next 9 months. However, on 16.5.2018 at 11:49AM, the complainant himself visited service center with the complaint that the mobile phone sometimes receiver voice disturbing and sometimes phone not connected etc. Regarding the said problem job sheet was prepared by the service center. The Engineers of the Service Center checked the handset and found that there was no problem with the handset. The service engineer informed the complainant that it is a Network Operator issue and not any manufacturing defect. It isfurther submitted that the complainant requested the service center engineer to update the software version and the software version of the handset in question was updated without any charges. Again the customer visited the service center on 22.5.2018 at 11:17 AM with thehandset problem Auto-restart during calls, hanging when using handset, sometimes network auto-disabled, heating during calls after 1-2 hours. The engineers checked the mobile phone and found no problem in the handset. Again the complainant visited the service center on 28.5.2018 with the problem of hanging issue. On asking to show the problem in the handset, the complainant left the service center immediately without showing any problem. It is further submitted that defects in the said mobile phone have not been accrued due to quality issues, but on account of old software issue only. Itis further pleaded that whatever repair was required the same was done , even the OPs replaced the PCB without charging anything from the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant has not produced any report of an expert to support his claim that the said mobile handset has any manufacturing defect. - On merits, it is denied that the said mobile phone suffered from any manufacturing defect from the very beginning. Further the OPs reiterated the facts as submitted in the preliminary objections and after denying all other averments made in the complaint, OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C1 his affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C2 to C9 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Happy, authorized representative/manager of OP alongwith documents i.e. Ex.OP1 copy of job sheet dated 16.5.2018, Ex.OP2 copy of job sheet dated 22.5.2018,Ex.OP3 copy of warranty instructions and guarantee replacement and rules, Ex.OP4 list of functional faults, Ex.OP5 copy of letter of authorization and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the complainant present in person, ld. counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The complainant argued that he had purchased Vivo Mobile phone on 19.8.2017 for Rs.23,000/-.It is further argued that since the date of purchase, the mobile phone was showing many problems. Accordingly the complainant approached the service center on 16.5.2018.It is further argued that the mobile phone was repaired by the service center but the repair was not up to mark as it again started giving problems. It is argued that as the mobile phone is not working properly so the price of mobile phone be refunded to the complainant and compensation or any other relief be provided.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs argued that as per the Guarantee Replacement and Repair rules, placed on the file, the set can be replaced within one month and the warranty period is of 365 days. The ld. counsel for the OPs argued that during the warranty period mobile phone was duly repaired and even mother board was also changed. It is further argued that now there is no defect in the mobile and the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove his case, the complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.C1 and he has deposed as per his complaint,Ex.C2 is the bill dated 19.8.2017, vide which phone was purchased for Rs.23,000/-,Ex.C4 is the job card dated 16.5.2018 and mobile was repaired but the customer has written “not satisfied”. The another job sheet is on the file vide which mobile was again repaired on 22.5.2018.
- On the other hand, the OPs has tendered Ex.OPA of the authorized representative/manager of OP, who deposed as per the written statement. It is pleaded that the service engineer checked the mobile and found that there was no issue and mobile was perfect. They have also proved the job sheet dated 16.5.2018,Ex.OP1.Another job sheet dated 22.5.2018 is Ex.OP2 and the warranty card is Ex.OP3.As per Guarantee Replacement and repair rules, if any functional faults occur in product or accessory due to quality issues, the mobile can be replaced within 30 days of purchasing of the product and the repair warranty is one year. The warranty instructions are mentioned in the guarantee card. So it is clear that as per the guarantee card, mobile can be replaced within 30 days but the warranty is for one year.
- So as the complainant purchased the mobile on 19.8.2017 and he approached the service center on 16.5.2018, therefore, as per guarantee instructions, the mobile cannot be changed but as per warranty instructions mobile can be repaired. The ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that they changed the mother board and now there is no defect in the mobile. But as the mobile is within warranty the complaint stands allowed and the OPs are directed to repair the mobile handset in question within 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. They are also directed to pay Rs.2500/- as compensation to the complainant.
ANNOUNCED DATED:22.10.2020 Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
