Thiruvananthapuram District Commission Holds Vivo, Its Service Centre Liable For Failure To Repair Phone Under Warranty
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) bench of P.V. Jayarajan(President), Preetha G Nair (Member) and Viju V.R. (Member) held Vivo and its service centre liable for deficiency in services due to its failure to repair a mobile phone under warranty. They had argued that the displayed damage resulted from physical causes outside the...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) bench of P.V. Jayarajan(President), Preetha G Nair (Member) and Viju V.R. (Member) held Vivo and its service centre liable for deficiency in services due to its failure to repair a mobile phone under warranty. They had argued that the displayed damage resulted from physical causes outside the warranty coverage but did not provide any supporting terms or conditions.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant purchased a Vivo mobile phone from Mobile Point, Kaimanam for Rs. 24,990/- and was informed at the time of purchase that it carried a one-year warranty. Within two months, liquid came into contact with the display which caused the phone to completely disrupt. The Complainant argued that there was no external damage which occurred to the phone. Despite contacting Vivo and its service centre, they demanded service charges for repairs and claimed that the defect fell outside the warranty period. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (“District Commission”) against Vivo and its service centre.
In response, Vivo and its service centre argued that the display was broken due to external physical damage. It informed the Complainant that the warranty did not cover physical damage and proposed replacement at the customer's expense. Allegedly, the Complainant declined and demanded the return of the phone, which was returned with the broken display and the job sheet cancelled. They argued there was no deficiency in service and that they were not liable for compensation as claimed in the complaint.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that Vivo and its service centre did not provide any contrary evidence or documentation to what was provided by the Complainant. While they referred to a delivery receipt from Vivo Haijin Trade India Pvt Ltd., this document was not submitted.
Vivo and its service centre argued that the display damage resulted from physical causes which fell outside the warranty coverage. However, the District Commission held that they failed to produce specific terms or conditions detailing warranty exclusions for physical damage. The District Commission held that mere assertions in their written defence, without supporting evidence, cannot undermine the Complainant's substantiated claims.
Therefore, the District Commission held Vivo and its service centre liable for deficiency in services. Consequently, it directed Vivo and its service centre to replace the display at no cost or refund the entire purchase amount of Rs. 24,990/- to the Complainant. Furthermore, they were directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 to the Complainant for the mental agony and financial loss suffered, along with Rs. 3,000/- as the cost of the proceedings.
Case Title: Praveen S. vs The Manager, Vivo and Anr.
Case Number: CC. No. 312/21
Date of Pronouncement: 24/04/2024