Delhi

North East

CC/129/2022

Karuna Shankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vivo & Mittal Store - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.129/22

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Karuna Shankar S/o  Sh. Mata Prasad Tiwari R/o H.No. A-24, Gali No.4,West Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. A-97 &98, Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi-110024   Mittal Store Office at D-3-A,Main Pusta Road, West Karawal Nagar, North East, Delhi-110094	Opposite Party (s)

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:                ORDER RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

25.05.22 06.01.23 25.01.23

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

 

 

ORDER

      Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased a Vivo Y53S Mobile phone in the name of his company ‘Property fine’ from Opposite Party having mobile no. 9312565191 GSTIN no. 07BFIPS1120P1Z6  for a sum of Rs.18,500/-. The Complainant bought the mobile on 21.01.22 and the mobile phone was not working well since the purchase. The Complainant stated that he visited the service centre of vivo/Opposite Party and told there that the handset had slow response issue, stuck issue, Contact hanged, autoback to home screen issue, speaker have low sound on calling, application crash itself during working of phone, the officials of Opposite Party gave him assurance that they would repair his mobile phone and after some time stated that the repairing of handset in question would take time. The Complainant again visited the service centre of Opposite Party and they again gave assurance to him of repairing the same but after sitting whole day in service centre of Opposite Party they did not repair his handset and asked him to visit again. The Complainant after 10 days called the service centre of Opposite Party and they told him that his phone was not repaired. The Complainant submitted that the problems in mobile phone were occurring due to software problem at company’s end and it was taking time to repair the mobile phone in question. The Complainant purchased new mobile which showed various problems and after visiting service centre of Opposite Party many times his mobile phone was not repaired. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Therefore, the complainant has prayed for Rs.18,500/- i.e. price of mobile phone in question and for Rs.15,000 on account of mental harassment.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party 1 and 2 to contest the case despite service of notice on 09.07.22 and 11.07.22 respectively. Therefore, both the Opposite Parties were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.08.22.

Ex-Parte evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit in evidence wherein he has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant and also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that that he purchased the Vivo Y53S Mobile phone in the name of the Property fine from the Mittal Store i.e. Opposite Party 2 for a sum of Rs.18,500/-. It is alleged that the said handset was not working well, so he visited the service centre of Vivo with the complaint of slow response issue, stuck issue, Contact hanged, auto back to home screen issue, speaker have low sound on calling, application crash itself during working of phone and the officials of Opposite Party assured him of repairing his mobile phone but failed to do so in spite of his repeated requests.
5. We have considered the contentions of the complainant and also perused the record of the file. On perusal of the invoice of the mobile in question filed by the complainant, it is clear that the handset in question was purchased by the complainant in the name of a company Property fine. The complainant states in his complaint that property fine is his company. This fact is further corroborated by the fact that the Job sheet for the repair of the mobile in question contains the name and particulars of the complainant. The complainant has also filed delivery receipt issued by the service centre in support of his contention that handset in question was not working well. On careful perusal of said document, it is revealed that the complainant complained of several faults in the handset as is mentioned in the column fault information. It is also observed that in the column “Remarks by engineer”, those faults were acknowledged. The contention of the complainant is that the Opposite party failed to repair his mobile, hence, committed deficiency of service.
6. It is to be noted here that Opposite party 1 is the manufacturer while the Opposite party 2 is the seller of the mobile.
7. As both the Opposite parties have not put in appearance in spite of notice and failed to file their version, we are left with no option except to believe the version of the complainant which is testified on oath.
8. In view of above discussion and the unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony of the complainant regarding the deficiency of services on the part of OP, we are of the considered view that the Opposite party no.1 which is Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer, has been deficient in services by not providing the satisfactory services to the complainant by not repairing the handset in question.
9. Thus, we allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party-1 i.e. Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. to pay to the complainant the cost of the handset i.e. Rs.18,500/- with interest @6% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint. The Opposite Party-1 is further directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost. Opposite Party-1 is liable to pay the same within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of order. In case of delay in the payment beyond 4 weeks OP will be liable to pay interest @6% p.a. for the delayed period.
10. Order announced on 25.01.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)     Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President