Vivo Liable For Deficiency In Service; Aligarh Consumer Court Orders Refund Of Defective Smartphone
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aligarh, comprising President Shri Hasnain Qureshi and Member Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, held that a manufacturer cannot escape liability merely by failing to contest a consumer complaint. Observing that the complainant's affidavit and documentary evidence remained unrebutted, the Commission held Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service.
Facts:
The complaint, Mohd Asbah, purchased a Vivo B30 smartphone for ₹23,500 from KS Venture, Aligarh, on 9 October 2024. From January 2025, the handset allegedly started experiencing heating and lagging issues. The complainant visited the Vivo service centre twice and also contacted Vivo Customer Care multiple times from February 2025, but the issue remained unresolved.
He further alleged that during his last visit to the service centre on 3 May 2025, the staff behaved rudely and refused to provide proper service.
Aggrieved by the alleged deficiency in service and mental harassment, the complainant approached the District Consumer Commission seeking a refund of the phone's cost along with compensation and litigation expenses.
Vivo did not file any written statement before the Commission.
Observation and Decision:
The Commission observed that Vivo failed to file any written statement or rebut the complainant's allegations despite receiving notice. Relying on the complainant's affidavit and documentary evidence, the Commission held that the company was guilty of deficiency in service.
Accordingly, it directed Vivo to refund ₹23,500, pay ₹50,000 as compensation for mental harassment and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs within 45 days. The Commission also permitted Vivo to take back the handset after making the payment.
Case Title: Mohd Asbah v. Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd.
Complaint Case No. 105 of 2025