Delhi

East Delhi

CC/417/2017

AAMIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIVO - Opp.Party(s)

11 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 417/17

 

Shri Aamir

R/o 31/426, Trilok Puri

Delhi – 110 091                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Vs.     

 

1. Vivo Service Centre

D-2, 2^nd Floor, Laxmi Nagar

Vikas Marg, Delhi   

 

2. Vivo

Plot No. 54, 3^rd Floor, Delta Tower

Sector-44, Gurgaon – 122 003                                                   ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 10.10.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 11.10.2018

Judgement Passed on: 22.10.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Aamir against Vivo Service Centre (OP-1) and VIVO, the manufacturer (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that on 20.11.2016, complainant Mr. Aamir purchased a Vivo Mobile set model Y-55L from the authorized dealer of OP by paying an amount of Rs. 11,980/- vide IMEI no. 862588031225452 and 862588031225445.

            It has been stated that after few months, the mobile was creating problem of automatic switch off for which the complainant visited the service centre i.e. OP-1 and submitted his phone for repair.  He was assured that he will not face this problem again, but the problem continued to persist. 

            The complainant submitted his phone again to OP-1 on 06.09.2017 vide job sheet no. 10103170900422 and was assured for replacement of phone within 7 days.  He visited the office of OP-1 after 7 days, but the mobile was not repaired.            

            It was stated that due to the act and omissions on part of OP, the complainant has suffered mental pain and agony.  Hence, he has prayed for refund the cost of mobile. i.e. Rs. 11980/-; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and pain and       Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation cost.  

            The complainant has annexed copy of retail invoice dated 20.11.2016 and copy of job sheet no. 10103170900422 alongwith  complaint.

 3.        Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP.  Inspite of service, OP have not appeared, hence they were proceeded Ex-parte.

4.  

5.         We have heard the submissions on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  The said handset was purchased on 20.11.2016 and vide job sheet dated 06.09.2017, the handset was given for repairs to OP-2, with the problem of “touch sometime not working, on off key some time not working”.  As per the job sheet, the handset was within warranty period. 

            During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. counsel for complainant that the handset was received by the complainant from the service centre, but only after filing of the present complaint and that too after regular follow up with the service centre.  As the complainant has received the handset, now the prayer pertaining to refund of the cost becomes infructuous.  The job sheet has been filed of dated 06.09.2017 and the date of institution of the present complaint is 10.10.2017 which has been filed after more than one month, whereas the complainant has stated that he was assured that the handset will be repaired and returned after 7 days. 

            As OP has been proceeded ex-parte, the allegations of the complainant have remained unrebutted.  Therefore, we direct OP-1 to pay Rs. 3,500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused due to delay in handing over the repaired handset to the complainant.  We, further direct OP-1 to pay Rs. 1,500/- as litigation expenses.  No liability can be fastened on OP-2 as they are merely a manufacturer and the complainant has not alleged any manufacturing defect in his complaint.              This order be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

        President