Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1010/2016

Harpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vivo - Opp.Party(s)

Jasveer Singh

07 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1010/2016
Date of Institution	:	11/11/2016
Date of Decision	:	07/11/2017

 

Harpal Singh son of Ram Chander r/o H.No.1219, Block-E, Adarsh Nagar, Naya Gaon, District Mohali (Pb.)

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Vivo, Head Office : Plot No.54, 3^rd Floor Delta Tower, Sector 44, Gurgaon, Haryana-122003 through Manager.

2.     Vivo Exclusive Service Centre, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Incharge.

3.     Syska Light Gadget Secure, Head Office at Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd., 29-Akshay Complex, Off Dhole Patil Road, Near Hotel Madhuban, Pune-411001 through its Managing Director/Chairman.

4.     Syska Light Gadget Secure, SCO No.109, First Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

5.     Chawla Brothers, SCO No.1035, Sector 22-B, Opp. Bus Stand, Chandigarh, through its proprietor.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sandeep Singh Brar, Counsel for complainant
	:	OPs 1,2 & 5 ex-parte
	:	Sh. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Counsel for OPs 3 & 4.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a Vivo Y51 mobile from OP-5 vide bill dated 6.6.2016 for Rs.10,800/-.  OP-5 gave warranty of one year and also got the phone insured from OPs 3 & 4 for further one year.  On 18.7.2016, the mobile set became faulty and the complainant visited the shop of OP-5 on the same day and also sent an email to OP-2.  On 16.8.2016, the complainant visited the office of OP-2 for its repair and it kept the mobile phone and assured that the same would be delivered after 2-3 days.  The complainant visited OP-2 many times and he was told that after deposit of Rs.8,500/- the phone would be delivered as OPs 3 & 4 had not paid the amount.  The complainant visited the office of OP-4, but, it did not give proper reply. As per the complainant, he is an electrician and all his work was on phone and due to non-delivery of the phone, he was forced to purchase a new phone from OP-5 for Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice to the OPs on 25.10.2016, but, to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP-1 did not appear despite due service, therefore, it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 16.1.2017.
3.         OPs 2 & 5 did not appear despite due service, therefore, they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 28.2.2017.
4.         OPs 3 & 4 in their joint written reply have admitted the facts with regard to purchase of the policy in question by the complainant. It has also been contended that the OPs have paid the amount raised by the service centre in respect of the abovesaid mobile handset.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         Replication was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of OPs 3 & 4.
6.         The contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
7.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the contesting parties. 
8.         It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant purchased one Vivo Y 51 mobile handset from OP-1 on 6.6.2016 for Rs.10,800/- with one year warranty.  Annexure C-2 is the copy of the Syska Gadget Secure warranty card as per which this handset was insured with OPs 3 & 4 further for one year.  Annexure C-3 is a copy of the job sheet dated 16.8.2016 when the handset got defective and the same was handed over to OP-2. As per the case of the complainant, till date, neither the handset has been repaired nor returned to him by the OPs.
9.         OPs 1, 2 & 5 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte.  This act of the OPs draws an adverse inference against them.  The non-appearance of OPs 1, 2 & 5 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant qua OPs 1, 2 & 5 go unrebutted and uncontroverted. 
10.         The stand taken by OPs 3 & 4 is that they have already cleared all the dues which were raised by the service centre for the repair of the handset in question. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
11.         Pertinently, OPs 1, 2 & 5 did not put their appearance to corroborate the defence taken by OPs 3 & 4.  Moreover, OPs 3 & 4 have not produced any documentary evidence on record as per which they have made the payment to the service centre towards the repair of the handset in question.  It is crystal clear that the innocent complainant is made to suffer because of the dispute inter se the OPs which is totally an unfair trade practice causing physical and mental harassment to the complainant.  Hence, the act of the OPs for non-honouring the warranty conditions despite the handset in question being not only within the warranty period, but, also insured during the relevant time, proves deficiency in service on their part.
12.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the invoice value of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.10,800/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

13.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
07/11/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member