DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/124/2021

Date of Institution : 4.06.2021

Date of Decision : 03.03.2022

Khushpreet Singh aged about 17 years minor son of Harpal Singh, resident of Chahal Patti, Village Badra, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala under the guardianship of her mother Sawarnjet Kaur wife of Harpal Singh resident of Chahal Patti, Village Badra, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala. 

…Complainant

Versus

1. Vivo made in India, Tec-1, Tec-2 and One-C, World Trade Center Noida, Plot No. TZ-13A, Techzone (IT Park), Greater Noida-201308, Uttar Pradesh, India through its Managing Director Email Address: vcare@vivo.com.

2. Vivo Made In India, Plot No. 54, Third Floor, Delta Tower, Sector 44, Gurgaon-122003, Haryana, India, Contact 124-4193388 through its Authorized Signatory.

3. RK Sales, Barnala, 22 Acre Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala through Authorized Signatory.

4. Vivo, Vigour Mobile India Private Limited, Near Valmiki Mandir, KC Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala through its Authorized Signatory.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Present: Sh. JS Dhaliwal Adv counsel for complainant.

Opposite parties No. 1, 3 and 4 exparte. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI MEMBER):

    The complainant Khushpreet Singh minor through his mother Sawarnjet Kaur filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Vivo made in India, Noida and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is minor and student of 10th class who need a mobile set to take classes on line due to spreading of Corona. The complainant and his mother visited the shop of opposite party No. 3 and purchased one Vivo Y12S mobile set for Rs. 9,800/- manufactured by opposite party No. 1 having one year warranty. 

3. It is further alleged that on 22.2.2021 the complainant started working on the said mobile set but said mobile set went off after cracking and was badly damaged owing to some manufacturing defects in the device. The complainant alongwith his mother approached the opposite party No. 3 who advised them to approach the opposite party No. 4 but opposite party No. 4 refused to take the mobile set saying that it is beyond repair. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 but opposite parties refused to entertain the complainant. The complainant again approached the opposite party No. 3 returned the said damaged set to the complainant alongwith job sheet dated 2.3.2021 by giving remarks that Engineer check and found touch display, battery cover AN Board and Battery of Frame damage or cannot be power on and gave estimate of these parts Rs. 10,815/- but customer not agree for this chargeable. The mobile was never checked by any alleged Engineer at any point of time. The act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service and negligence. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to replace the said phone to the complainant or in the alternative refund the amount of Rs. 9,800/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realization.    

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

4. The opposite party No. 1 not appeared before this Commission despite service so the opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.10.2021. The opposite parties No. 3 and 4 initially appeared before this Commission and filed written versions separately but later on both the opposite parties not appeared so the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.2.2022. 

5. The opposite party No. 3 filed written reply taking legal objections that the opposite party No. 3 only sold the mobile to the complainant and after the same the company opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 are responsible for any fault as per terms and condtions of the company. The complainant came to the opposite party No. 3 with the defect in the mobile set and opposite party No. 3 advised them to lodge complaint with the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4. The opposite party No. 3 cooperate with the complainant and is ready to provide all services to the complainant. So, there is no deficiency on the part of answering opposite party. The present complaint is not maintainable and complainant concealed material facts from this Commission. 

6. On merits, it is admitted that the opposite party No. 3 sold the mobile set to the complainant. The company provide a service center opposite party No. 4 for any complaint in regard to their product and opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 are responsible for any defect or service of the mobile. The complainant deposited the said mobile to the opposite party No. 4 and get it from opposite party No. 4 with job sheet dated 2.3.2021 which was issued by the opposite party No. 3 so there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 3. Lastly, the opposite party No. 3 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with cost.  

7. The opposite party No. 4 also filed written reply in which they submitted that vivo mobiles go through quality checks and product sold to the consumer was not having any defect. The complainant filed this complaint only as a counter blast against the criminal complaint filed by the opposite parties against the complainant on 4.3.2021 with SHO City Barnala. The police is conducting inquiry in this matter. On 4.3.2021 the complainant vandalized the store of the respondents at about 11.50 AM. He broke the LED amounting to Rs. 40,000/- and filed this complaint to pressurize the opposite parties to withdraw the said criminal complaint. The story of mobile cracking is false. The Engineer of the opposite parties checked the device and found it to be totally broken which is also mentioned in police complaint. There is no question of any manufacturing defect. The complainant deposited the handset on 2.3.2021 for checking purpose and as the handset was damaged its repair was not chargeable covered by the terms of warranty. The handset was returned to the complainant on the very next day with estimate of repair charges. The complainant took the mobile and refused repair. On 4.3.2021 the complainant came back to the shop of the opposite parties and quarreling with the opposite parties to repair the handset for free. But he took law into his hands and started vandalizing the store of the opposite parties. Lastly the opposite party No. 4 also prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

8. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Sawarnet Kaur Ex.C-1, copy of delivery report  Ex.C-2, mobile set in question Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.

9. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 not tendered any document and later on proceeded against exparte.

10. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the record. Written arguments also filed by the complainant.

11. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the mobile make Vivo Y12S from the opposite party No. 3 for Rs. 9,800/-. It is alleged by the complainant that on 22.2.2021 when the complainant started on line study by placing the said mobile on the table it set went off after cracking and was badly damaged. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 for repair of mobile who advised the complainant to approach opposite party No. 4 service centre of  company.

12. After scrutinizing the phone the opposite party No. 4 gave an estimate of Rs. 10,815/- for its repair but the complainant refused to get it repair due to costs. The complainant himself tendered into evidence copy of job sheet Ex.C-2 duly signed by the complainant.

13. This Commission on examining the Ex.C-3 i.e. mobile set in question found that the mobile set in question was badly damaged. Even it is hard to tell that the mobile set in question and the mobile set tendered by the complainant are the same. The complainant also failed to prove this fact that the mobile set tendered by the complainant is same which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No. 3. 

14. On the other hand the complainant neither placed on record any guarantee/warranty card in support of his case nor any technical/ expert report in support of his allegation that the mobile in question is having the manufacturing defect and mobile set Ex.C-3 is same which was purchased by the complainant. The expert evidence is necessary to prove the manufacturing defect in the product.

14. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in Pawan Kumar Vs Nissan Motors India Private Limited bearing Revision Petition No. 2276 of 2017 decided on 3.1.2018 held that “Petitioner has failed to place on record any expert opinion regarding alleged manufacturing defect in his vehicle. Deficiency not proved.”

15. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi also in case titled Sanjay Singh Versus Dabloo Bhagat bearing Revision Petition No. 2840 of 2016 decided on 11.5.2018 held that “The complainant failed to place on record any technical/expert report to support his allegation that the tractor in question was defective.”

16. In this way the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

17. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        3rd Day of March 2022

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member