Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak
Complaint No. : 513.
Instituted on : 22.10.2018
Decided on : 02.02.2021.
Sumit age 30 years, s/o Sh. Dalbir Singh R/o B-232, Preet Vihar colony, Rohtak, Haryana.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Vivo Mobile India Private Limited, TEC 1 & TEC 2, World Trade Centre Noida, Plot No.TR-13A, Techzone(IT Park), Greater Noida: 201308, through its Director.
- Vigour mobile India Pvt. Ltd., SCF 23, 1st Floor, Civil Road, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 through its Manager.
- Om Sai Enterprises, Civil Road, Chottu Ram Chowk Rohtak-124001. through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sandeep Khokhar, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte V.O.D.22.12.2020.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT :
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a smart mobile phone model Vivo V3 MAX from the opposite party No.3 vide bill No.15686 dated 29.10.2016 bearing IMEI No.862852030704051 for a sum of Rs.23980/-. The handset was sold with one year warranty and one year extended warranty card for any manufacturing or other defect in the handset. But soon after purchasing the aforesaid handset, it started giving trouble as it used to hang from time to time and if once hanged then had to switch it off, which is very inconvenient and embarrassing at times. On 15.09.2018 complainant approached the opposite party No.2 for repair of the alleged mobile and it was kept by them and was returned back with the assurance that the same has been repaired. But on the very next day, it again started creating the same problems. Complainant contacted the opposite party No.3 and he admitted the fact that the mobile in question has inherent manufacturing defect and the same cannot be rectified/repaired. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.23980/- toward the price of defected handset, an amount of Rs.30000/- for the inconvenience, mental agony, harassment and economic loss caused by them to the complainant and an amount of Rs.11000/- towards the litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in the relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.2 received back served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 despite due service and opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.12.2018 of this Forum(now Commission). Opposite party No.1 & 3 appeared and filed their written reply on behalf of opposite party No.1 to 3 submitting therein that the said phone was working properly from the date of purchase i.e. 29.10.2016 to 15.09.2018. Therefore, if there would be any defect or default in the said mobile phone from the very beginning then the complainant had complete right and liberty to visit the opposite party for its repairing but the complainant did not visit to the opposite party within the said warranty period which itself proves that the said phone was working properly without any defect and had no default in the said phone. It is true to the extent that the complainant had approached to the opposite party No.2 on dated 15.09.2018 with the issue that there was a physical damage in the touch screen as it was cracked and scratch and dent on body, battery upper cover was cracked and stated the issues like low battery back up and hanging issue while using application and network was not stable. The answering opposite party duly kept the phone and after a thorough inspection came to know that the said phone was having no issues as described by the complainant. The phone was showing issues due to mishandling of the said phone by the complainant. Thereby the opposite party returned the said phone after updating the software and intimated the complainant that the display and the touch of the said hone has a physical/external damage and the service would be chargeable as the warranty period of the said phone was over, thereby the complainant denied for the repairing of the said phone. The complainant duly checked the said phone after receiving it back and the said phone was functioning properly. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. But opposite parties did not appear on dated 22.12.2020 and were proceeded against exparte by this Commission.
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 07.02.2020.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per bill Ex.C1, the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on dated 29.10.2016 for Rs.23980/- which was having one year warranty and as per extended warranty card Ex.C2, the mobile in question of the complainant was having extended warranty of one year i.e. upto 28.10.2018. As per job sheet Ex.C3 dated 15.09.2018, there were problems of low battery back up, hanging issue and network issues in the mobile in question which appeared during warranty period. The complainant requested the opposite parties to repair the alleged mobile phone but the same could not be repaired by the opposite parties. It is also on record that after filing the reply, opposite parties did not appear and as such it is presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding not removing the defects of mobile in question within warranty period stands proved. As such opposite party No.1 being the manufacturer is liable to compensate 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 pay the price of mobile set after deduction of 50% amount of the mobile set as the complainant has used the mobile set in question uninterruptedly for 1 year and 11 months, i.e. to pay Rs.11990/-(Rupees eleven thousand nine hundred and ninety only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 22.10.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, the complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.1.
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:
02.02.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
…………………………….
Tripti Pannu, Member.
