2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in their reply has submitted that the complainant had purchased the phone from opposite parties through Paytm. The complainant has neither visited the service centre nor met any executives of the service centre on dated 18.10.2018. It is further submitted that the respondent replaced the said phone with the new VIVO V11 Pro mobile to the complainant alongwith a job sheet and replacement receipt on 27.10.2018. At the time of receiving the same, the said phone was duly checked and accepted and same was in working properly, thus, had no inbuilt/manufacturing defect. It is also submitted that on 12.11.2018, the respondent sent the mail to the complainant and stated that the phone which was returned by the complainant was functioning properly and had not defect. It is also submitted that as per company police, the refund would be made only on inbuilt manufacturing defect of the handset. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.20 and closed his evidence on dated 21.5.2019. Opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.R1/A, and closed their evidence on dated 18.10.2019.
4. In the present complaint, the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 05.10.2018 , which was having an issue regarding on screen finger print scanner and as such, the mobile was replaced on 11.10.2018 as per bill Ex.C2. Thereafter complainant made complaint vide Ex.C3. As per job sheets Ex.C5 to Ex.C6, it is submitted that “although handset is replaced but reported issue/complaint is not resolved at all. Complainant made so many emails placed on record as Ex.C7 and has also placed on record documents Ex.C8 to Ex.C19 to prove that the Fingerprint scanner was not upto the mark. On the other hand, opposite parties have not placed on record any document to prove that the alleged defect of fingerprint scanner was resolved.
5. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case, we have observed that despite repeated replacement of the respondents, the fingerprint scanner issue in the mobile set was not resolved, which was observed by the complainant from the very beginning. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for selling the defective mobile set to the complainant. As such opposite party no.1 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the price of mobile set Rs.25990/-(Rupees twenty five thousand nine hundred ninety only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.22.11.2018 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service 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 party No.1 at the time of receiving the alleged 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:
29.11.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
…………………………………
Tripti Pannu, Member.
