Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 321.
Instituted on : 18.07.2018.
Decided on : 03.11.2021.
Satpal Dahiya age 37 years, s/o Sh. Bhim singh R/o Village Sampla, District Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Shree Bala Ji Enterprises(Shop) Main Ashoka Chowk, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
- Vivo Service Centre, SCF-23, First Floor, Civil Road, Near Indusind Bank, Rohtak-124001.
- Emmar Palm Springs Plaza 10th & 11th floor Golf Course Road DLF Phase-5, Sector-54, Gurugram-122002.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.K.Barak Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 & 2 exparte.
Sh.Amit Kumar A.R. for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone of Vivo company for Rs.10000/- from the opposite party No.1 on 26.07.2017 but from the very beginning, the mobile was giving trouble and at last within six months of its purchase, its voice become slow and android system was not working properly and the phone was suffered hanging & network problems. Complainant visited the opposite party No.2 i.e. service centre on 30th June 2018 but they returned the same to the complainant after one hour and gave a job sheet to the complainant but after repair phone was not working properly. Complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 various times but after repair, it did not work properly. Officials of opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that the defect cannot be repaired as it is a manufacturing defect. The complainant is regularly visiting the respondents since June 2018 but the defects of the mobile could not be removed by the opposite parties within warranty period. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to return the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.10000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 2 did not appear despite service and as such they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.09.2018 of this Commission. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that it is denied that the mobile phone was showing troubles and within the six months of the purchase the said phone had issues like voice quality of phone got low and the android system of the said phone was not working and the phone suffered the hanging and network problems. It is submitted that the said phone had no inbuilt or manufacturing defect till the date of approach to the respondent no.2 i.e. on 30th June, 2018. The said phone was kept with the engineer of the respondent no.2 for further checking/detecting the issue and rectifying/repairing the same, thus, the respondent no.2 duly provided a job sheet towards the same. It is denied that the said phone was not working properly after repair. It is pertinent to mention here that the engineer of respondent no.2 detected the cause of the fault and stated that the troubles/issues were because of some certain damage/misappropriate handling(i.e. bad software) of the said phone, thus the damages have been caused by the complainant himself. Thereby the respondents stated that the software version was old which was required to be upgraded and also guided the complainant for appropriate use of the said phone. The mobile was working properly without any defect but the complainant visited the respondent no.2 just before the expiry of the warranty period of the said phone. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on 13.08.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the OP no.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, and closed his evidence on dated 03.02.2020.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, complainant has placed on record three documents i.e. bill Ex.C1, job sheet Ex.C2 and Aadhar Card Ex.C3. On the other respondent no.3 has placed on record affidavit Ex.RW1/A. We have minutely perused service job sheet placed on record by the complainant Ex.C2. As per this job sheet, mobile phone was brought before the service centre i.e. respondent no.1 on dated 30.06.2018 at about 12.05(Noon) As per the complainant there were some issues i.e. network bar not stable, hanging issue while using any applications. The service centre upgraded the software on the same day and the mobile was handed over to the complainant at 2.55P.M. The mobile phone was in good working condition at that time. The bare perusal of the remarks mentioned in the job sheet itself shows that network bar not stable and hanging problem issues developed due to non-upgradation of the application of the mobile phone. The respondent officials upgraded the phone and same is in working condition. After that no complaint has ever been made by the complainant with the respondents. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
03.11.2021.
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………….
Tripti Pannu, Member.
