Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 493.
Instituted on : 27.10.2020.
Decided on : 17.11.2021.
Hitesh Yadav son of Sh. Gopal Yadav, resident of House No.1584/1, Rajinder Colony, Bhiwani Chungi, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Vivo Mobile Co. Office at 10th and 11th floor Emaar Plam Springs Plaza, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase 5, Sector 54, Gurugram-122003.
- Service Center Vivo Mobiles, S.C.F. 23, 1st floor, Civil Road, Near Indusind Bank, Rohtak-124001 through its Manager(Authorized Service Center of Vivo).
- Mobile Arena, Ground floor, Shop No.6, Apna Bazar Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sandeep Kumar Hooda, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, AR for opposite party no.1.
Opposite parties no.2 and 3 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Vivo Mobile model S1 Pro 8/128 for Rs.19,990/- vide invoice no.MA/1425/19-20 dated 7.2.2020 having one year warranty from the respondent no.3. The mobile in question was having some manufacturing defect from the date of purchase and in this regard, complainant informed the opposite party no.2. The complainant had visited many times to respondent no.2 at Rohtak for the said problems i.e. display/touch problem. The complainant made a service request to respondent no.2 vide service request dated 21.10.2020. The complainant received a call from respondent no.2 that the screen of the mobile was broken and he has to pay for the replacement of screen. The complainant had asked them to replace the screen free of costs as the mobile phone was in warranty period but the respondent no.2 flatly refused to change or repair the mobile. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile in question and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that it is denied that the said mobile was not functioning properly from the very beginning. It is also submitted that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant was duly self inspected by the complainant at the time of purchase and was not a defective piece. The said mobile was working properly without any problem from the date of purchase till said date when the phone was deposited with the service centre, but due to mishandling/physical damage and liquid damage caused to the phone it started having problems/issues in working properly. It is also submitted that the complainant had never visited the service centre before 21.10.2020. On dated 21.10.2020 the complainant visited to the service centre for display not working properly. The opposite party had duly inspected the same and informed that the said phone was having issues due to display damage/broken. The service staff guided the complaiantn to change the display with actual cost of display because as per the company policy, broken handset was not covered under the warranty policy. The said phone was working properly from the date of purchase till 21.10.2020 i.e. for almost 9 months without any issues, thereby it is clear that there was no manufacturing defect in the said phone. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs. However, opposite parties no.2 and 3 did not appear despite service. As such opposite parties No.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.12.2020 of this Commission.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on dated 16.4.2021. On the other hand, AR of OP no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on dated 14.09.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, at the time of arguments, three documents have been placed on record by the opposite party No.1 i.e. ‘Annexure JN-A’ to ‘Annexure JN-D’. But the report of technician and engineer has not been placed on record by the respondent company. We have minutely perused the affidavit filed by the respondent. In this affidavit IMEI number of the mobile has not been mentioned and the same is left blank which shows that they do not know that for which mobile they are filing the affidavit. No evidence of physical or liquefied damage has been placed on record. Respondent also failed to place on record any affidavit of technician that mobile phone was checked at Jind or at Rohtak and was found faulty or damaged or liquefied. The date of purchase of mobile set is 07.02.2020 and the defect appeared in the alleged mobile set on 21.10.2020 i..e. within warranty period but the same was not repaired/replaced by the opposite parties. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party no.1 being the manufacturer of mobile is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 25% depreciation on it, as the complainant has used the mobile set uninterruptedly for more than 8 months.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 25% depreciation i.e. Rs.14925/-(Rupees fourteen thousand nine hundred and twenty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 27.10.2020 till its realization and also to pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as 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:
17.11.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
