DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : CC/72/2022

Date of Institution   : 03.03.2022

Date of Decision    : 03.05.2024

Avtar Singh aged about 54 years son of Jagraj Singh, resident of Kumbarwal, District Sangrur, Mobile No. 98154-57040.      

                          …Complainant Versus

1.Vivo Mobile India Private Limited, TEC-1, TEC-2 & One-C, World Trade Center Noida, Plot No. TZ-13A, Techzone (I.T.Park), greater Noida 201308, Uttar Pradesh, India, through its Managing Director(Email Address: vcare@vivo.com).

2.Vivo, Vigour Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. Near Valmiki Mandir, K.C. Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala (Authorized Service Center of Vivo Mobile India), through its Authorized Signatory. 

3.Vivo Mobile India Private Limited, Made in India, Plot No. 54, Third Floor, Delta Tower, Sector 44, Gurgaon 122003, Haryana, India, Contact +91-124-4193388, through its authorized signatory.

4.Manish Telecom, Sadar Bazar, Near Railway Station, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala, through authorized signatory.     

                            …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. Chander Bansal counsel for complainant.

Sh. Gagandeep Garg counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 3.

Opposite party No. 4 exparte.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant namely Avtar Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, (amended upto date) against Vivo Mobile India Private Limited and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).   

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant went to shop of opposite party No. 4 to purchase one Vivo mobile and the complainant had purchased Vivo Y20 A having IMEI No. 862897054293390 for an amount of Rs. 11,500/- vide Invoice No. 85 dated 15.4.2021 and at the time of purchase of above said mobile phone the opposite party No. 4 gave the guarantee of 01 year of on the said mobile phone set and also assured that in case any problem raised in the phone then the opposite party No. 1 will replace the same with new one. It is alleged that after about 10 days from the date of purchase the said mobile phone started giving problem i.e. usually over heat problem and is also having some other manufacturing defects and the complainant surprised to see that his new mobile phone was not working properly and on 31.1.2022 the above said mobile became fold (bend) due to overheat and on 1.2.2022 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 4 and showed the said bended mobile and requested to change the said mobile set with new one as assured by opposite party No. 4 but the opposite party No. 4 told that the complainant must have approached the opposite party No. 2 and they will change the said defective mobile set with new one but the opposite party No. 2 started making lame excuses and putting of the matter on one or the other pretext and flatly refused to change the said defective mobile with new one or to repair the same without any charge and flatly refused to issue job sheet because the opposite party No. 3 was demanded Rs. 4,500/- from the complainant for the repair of said device. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 telephonically and told the above said facts but the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 did not pay any heed towards the request of the complainant and due to the above said act of the opposite parties the complainant is under great mental shock, pain, agony and trauma and the same falls under the definition of unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To replace the said device/cell phone to complainant or in alternative refund the amount of Rs. 11,500/- so charged by opposite parties with interest @ 12% per annum till realization. 

ii) Further, to pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation on account of harassment tension and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.  

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 appeared and filed written version by taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that the present complaint is frivolous, vexatious and filed only to harass and humiliate the opposite parties. The complainant is not the direct consumer of opposite parties. The complainant is estopped to file the present complaint by his own act and conduct because on 25.1.2022 opposite parties have received handset in physically heavy bend damaged condition due to external force or drop by the user/complainant, so as per Vivo India/opposite parties policy, it was considered in chargeable conditions and the same mentioned on complainant's job sheet also, but the complainant denied to pay Rs. 3,795/- payment for repair purpose and the opposite parties returned the handset to complainant on the same condition on the same day and thereafter complainant never approached the answering opposite parties. The complainant got no locus-standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. 

4. On merits, it is submitted that on 25.1.2022 opposite parties have received Model Y20A, wide IMEI No. 862897054293390 vide job sheet No. MWINPB010022201250007 with Problem of Handset Bend, after checking by engineers of opposite parties it observed that the handset was badly damaged by drop or External force and opposite parties gave complainant an estimated cost of the bend spare part Rs. 3,795/- because bent problem does'nt fall under the warranty conditions as per opposite parties policy. But the complainant denied to pay any amount thereafter the opposite parties returned the handset to the complainant and complainant never approach the opposite parties except the day of 25.1.2022. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint with costs. 

5. The opposite party No. 4 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.4.2022 due to non appearance. 

6. Ld. Counsel for complainant has suffered the statement that I do not want to file any rejoinder on behalf of complainant.

7. To prove his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, photographs Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.   

8. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Kuldeep Chand Ex.O.P1.2.3/1, copy of job sheet Ex.O.P1.2.3/2, photographs Ex.O.P1.2.3/3 and Ex.O.P1.2.3/4 and closed the evidence. 

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. Written arguments filed by the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 to 3. 

10. In order to prove his case the complainant alongwith his complaint has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1 in which he has taken the stand as mentioned in the complaint. He further placed on record copy of invoice No. 85 dated 15.4.2021 Ex.C-2, which shows that the complainant has purchased one Vivo Y20 A having IMEI No. 862897054293390 for an amount of Rs. 11,500/- from the opposite party No. 4. Apart from this he has placed on record photographs of mobile set in question Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4 which shows that the above said mobile set became fold (bend).  

11. On the other hand the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 in order to rebut the case of complainant has placed on record affidavit of Kuldeep Chand Ex.O.P1.2.3/1, which is similar averments to the written version filed by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3. Further, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have placed on record copy of Job Sheet/Delivery Receipt dated 25.1.2022 Ex.O.P1.2.3/2 in which in the column of fault information it is mentioned “Handset bend”. Further, in the column of solution it is mentioned “User cancel repair-for cost reason”. It is also mentioned in the column remarks that Engineer Check and Found Handset Bend Damage By Drop or External force we give estimate of display screen is 3795.00 but customer not agree for chargeable repair. Further, Ex.O.P1.2.3/3 & Ex.O.P1.2.3/4 are photographs which shows that the mobile set became bend (fold). However, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have not placed on record any terms and conditions of warranty to indicate the fact that the above said defect/problem is not covered under the warranty and the same is chargeable. 

12. The allegation of the complainant is that the handset in question is having manufacturing defect and the same should be replaced with new one. But to prove this fact the complainant has failed to place on record any expert report/opinion of any expert/technician. Further, the above said defect in the handset in question was occurred/developed after the period of almost 9 months. However, we are of the view that the problem/defect of the handset in question was well within the knowledge of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 but they did not repair/remove the defect of the device free of costs because the mobile set in question was within the warranty period of 1 year as stated by the complainant in his complaint and in his affidavit and the same fact is not denied by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 in their written version, so the complainant is entitled for the repair of handset in question.

13. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to repair the above said handset in question of the complainant and to replace the defective parts of handset in question with a new one of the same make and model free of costs. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 3,300/- on account of consolidated amount of compensation as well as litigation expenses to the complainant.

14. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

15. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       3rd Day of May, 2024

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member