Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/48/2016

Brij Mohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vivo Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Navveen Behl

28 Oct 2016

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 48 of 2016

                                           Date of institution : 11.05.2016                                                   Date of decision    : 28.10.2016

Brij Mohan Singh son of Mohan Singh R/o Bal Chetan Villa, Mandofal Road, Sirhind, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Vivo Mobile C/o Near Krishna Mandir, Near Gol Market, Gaushala Road Mandi Gobindgarh Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its authorized Signatory.
2. Aman, Manager of Vivo Mobile, C/o Near Krishna Mandir, Near Gol Market, Gaushala Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. Gian Electronics, Baba Baz Singh Market, Near Tehsil Complex, Fatehgarh Sahib, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

 …..Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                                

Quorum

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                     

   Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

 

Present :  Sh.Naveen Behl, Adv. counsel for the complainant.  

                     OP No.2 exparte.

               Sh. Gian Singh, Proprietor of OP No.3 in person.

 ORDER

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                      Complainant, Brij Mohan Singh son of Mohan Singh R/o Bal Chetan Villa, Mandofal Road, Sirhind, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as "the OPs") under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   The complainant visited the shop of OP No.3, where OP No.2 was promoting the 4G handsets of Vivo Mobile Company.  OP No.2 told the complainant that VIVO 431 is a 4G version handset with latest and advanced features. The complainant wanted to purchase a 4G handset and under the impression of OP No.2, he purchased the said Mobile namely VIVO 431 4G and paid Rs.10500/-, vide bill No. 5580 dated 27.10.2015, from OP No.3. After the said purchase the complainant also bought 4G sim and found that the said handset is not a 4G mobile. The complainant made a complaint to OPs No. 2 and 3 regarding the sale of mobile in an unfair manner.  OP No.3 assured the complainant that his mobile will be replaced with new 4G mobile but nothing has been done. The complainant also visited office of OP No.1 and made a complaint regarding the sale of said mobile on false assurance.  Then OP No.1 assured the complainant that the mobile will be replaced with new 4G mobile after 31.03.2016. But the mobile has not been replaced by the OPs despite so many calls and visits. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice on their parts. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to replace the mobile in question with new 4G supported mobile and further to pay Rs.25,000/- on account of harassment, mental tension and unwanted litigation.

3.                   Notices of the complaint were issued to OPs No.2 and 3. OP No.2 chose not to appear to contest this complaint despite service. Hence, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte.

4.                   The complaint is contested by OP No.3, who filed his written reply. In reply to the complaint OP No.3 stated that he disclosed each and every feature of the mobile handset in question to the complainant like its internal memory, 3G, Camera, processor and regarding Android version. He further stated that he only deals with Sale and purchase of the mobile hand set and in case there is any defect in the mobile hand set, the customer has to visit the Service Centre for removal of the defect.  

5.                   In order to prove his complaint the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, attested copy of bill Ex. C-2 and closed the evidence.  In rebuttal OP No.3 stated that the reply filed by him be treated as evidence and closed his evidence.

6.                   The Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that he purchased a mobile hand set Vivo 431 for Rs.10,500/-, vide bill No.5580 dated 27.10.2015 from OP No.3. The set was purchased with clear understanding that the set was 4G version with latest and advanced features. It was purchased on the assurance given by the Manager Mr. Aman, who was promoting the handsets on behalf of the company, OP No.1. The complainant also bought 4G Sim and when he tried to use the mobile set, it was found that mobile set was not 4G version but was 3G version. Complaint was lodged with OPs, but inspite of the assurance given by the OPs, the set was not replaced with 4G version. Thus the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice. The ld. counsel thus pleaded for the acceptance of his complaint and directing the OPs to replace the mobile set and also penalizing the OPs on account of harassment, mental tension and unwanted litigation.

7.                   OP No.2 and 3 were given due notice and summons were duly served. OP No.2 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte. The complaint was contested by OP No.3, who filed written version. OP No.3 submitted that each and every feature of the mobile hand set was explained to the complainant like its internal memory, 3G, Camera, processor and regarding android version. He further submitted that if there was any dispute regarding the 3G or 4G version, it was to be taken up with the company or its Manager, OP No.1 and OP No.2. If there was any defect in the hand set, the customer has to visit the service centre for removal of the defect. Thus OP No.3 pleaded for dismissal of the complaint qua him.

8.                   After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments, we find that there is no force in the submission of the complainant. No document has been produced which prove that instead of 4G version mobile hand set, he was given the mobile hand set of 3G version. There is nothing as such on the bill of the mobile hand set. Whatever is mentioned on the bill regarding the company, its model and its IMEI number; the same mobile hand set has been sold to the complainant. We do not find any merit in the contention of the complainant. Hence, we dismiss the complaint. There is no order as to the cost. Parties to bear their own cost.

9.                   The arguments on the complaint were heard on 24.10.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:- 28.10.2016

 (Veena Chahal)                       Member

 

      (A.B.Aggarwal)                      Member