Malappuram District Commission Holds Vivo & Its Retailer Liable For Failure To Provide Free Service Within Warranty Period, Orders Refund & Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (Kerala) bench comprising Mr Mohandasan K. (President), Mr Mohamed Ismayil CV (Member) and Mrs. Preethi Sivaraman C (Member) held Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. and its retailer, My G liable for deficiency in service for causing hardships to the Complainant who encountered several issues with the vivo phone soon after its purchase, such as appearance of a green line, constant hanging and unexpected shutdowns. Even during the warranty period, Vivo failed to provide free-of-cost repairs. Facts of the Case: Mr Muhammed (“Complainant”) purchased a Vivo 2045 X60 mobile phone from My G (“Retail Shop”). The phone cost Rs. 34,990/-, and on the same day, the Complainant paid Rs. 12,881/- to the Retail Shop and the remaining amount in instalments. The phone was covered under a one-year warranty for both its software and hardware. Within a few months of usage, an unexpected green line appeared across the screen of the mobile phone. Concerned, the Complainant approached the Retail Shop explaining the issue with the phone. In response, the Retail Shop assured the Complainant that it was a minor glitch in the software and would be resolved promptly. However, as time passed, the phone exhibited more severe malfunctions, such as constant hanging and unexpected shutdowns, rendering it unusable. Subsequently, on the 12th of November 2022, the Complainant sought assistance from Vivo's service centre, where a delivery receipt was provided. Notably, the record indicated that the phone's screen was broken (touch broken). The Complainant maintained that until the date of approaching the service centre, he was not responsible for any damage to the phone. Instead, he attributed the defects to the deficiency in service on the part of the Vivo service centre and the retail shop. Furthermore, the Retail Shop and Vivo allegedly demanded Rs. 9,000/- from the complainant to rectify the damage. The complainant contended that the defect in the phone was solely due to the failure of the opposite parties to fulfil their service obligations/. Upon admission of the complaint, notices were duly issued to the opposite parties. Despite service of the notices, the opposite parties failed to appear and were proceeded ex parte against. Contentions of the Parties: The District Commission held that since allegations against the opposite parties have been substantiated by the unchallenged evidence provided by the Complainant, it held the Vivo service centre and the Retail Shop liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Consequently, it directed them to refund the sum of Rs. 34,990/- (the cost of the mobile phone) to the Complainant and instructed the Complainant to return the mobile phone to the retail store on the date of refund sought from them. Acknowledging the mental agony, physical hardships, and sufferings caused to the Complainant due to the deficiency in service, the District Commission directed the opposite parties to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant. They were also directed to cover the litigation costs of Rs. 2,000/- incurred by the Complainant. Case Title: Muhammed vs Vivo Mobile India Pvt Ltd and Anr. Case No.: Complaint Case No. CC/32/2023 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Malappuram District Commission Holds Vivo & Its Retailer Liable For Failure To Provide Free Service Within Warranty Period, Orders Refund & Compensation

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Malappuram District Commission Holds Vivo & Its Retailer Liable For Failure To Provide Free Service Within Warranty Period, Orders Refund & Compensation

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers