Consumer forum orders Vijaya Cell Shopee to pay senior citizen Rs. 20,000 in Visakhapatnam

VISAKHAPATNAM: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that Vijaya Cell Shopee must pay Rs. 20,000 to a senior citizen in Visakhapatnam for deficiency in service.

Bankapalli Janardhana Rao (62), a resident of Kannayya Peta in Visakhapatnam, owned an MI mobile and visited Vijaya Cell Shopee in Dhaba Gardens to purchase a battery for his mobile phone. The proprietor of Vijay Cell Shopee, P. Vijaya Shankar, agreed to replace the battery of Bankapalli Janardhana Rao's phone by removing the old one.

Subsequently, P. Vijaya Shankar replaced the battery and charged Rs. 850 for its cost on August 3, 2022. During the purchase, Vijaya Shankar informed that the battery had a three-month replacement/warranty. However, immediately after the purchase, it was noticed that the battery was discharging quickly after charging. When this issue was brought to the attention of Vijaya Cell Shopee, they refused to replace it using vulgar language.

Bankapalli Janardhana Rao alleged that Vijaya Cell Shopee had been selling duplicate batteries and cheating customers, constituting a deficiency of service.

When Vijaya Cell Shopee refused to replace the battery or refund the amount despite the request, Bankapalli Janardhana Rao issued a Legal Notice dated August 18, 2022. Although Vijaya Cell Shopee received the notice, they neither complied with the terms nor issued any reply. Consequently, Bankapalli Janardhana Rao approached the Commission seeking relief.

The Commission, after registering the complaint, issued a notice to Vijay Cell Shoppe as provided under the Consumer Protection Act. Despite receiving the notices, Vijay Cell Shoppe and its proprietor, Vijay Shankar, failed to appear before the Commission, leading to an ex-parte proceeding.

The court noted that Bankapalli Janardhana Rao had paid Rs. 850 for the purchase of the battery and provided proof of battery installation and its non-functioning. Despite the warranty given by Vijaya Cell Shopee, they failed to replace the battery.

Bankapalli Janardhana Rao issued a Legal Notice requiring the replacement of the battery, which Vijay Cell Shopee received. However, they still failed to comply with the terms of the Legal Notice and disputed its contents in their reply. The court noted that traders like Vijay Cell Shopee are supposed to supply quality material to customers. Based on the evidence, the court concluded that Vijay Cell Shopee supplied inferior quality material, as supported by the Legal Notice.

Furthermore, the court noted that Vijay Cell Shopee's failure to replace the new battery, despite having received payment, amounted to a deficiency in service. Consequently, the court ruled that Bankapalli Janardhana Rao deserved the reliefs claimed in the complaint. The court acknowledged that Bankapalli Janardhana Rao had purchased the battery, expecting it to work for a minimum period, and its malfunctioning caused mental agony, warranting reasonable compensation.

Given the court's ruling that Vijay Cell Shopee sold duplicate batteries, which poses a menace in society, the court directed Vijay Cell Shopee to either replace the battery or refund its cost of Rs. 850 with interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of purchase until the date of realisation. Additionally, the court ordered Vijay Cell Shopee to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation towards damages, along with litigation costs of Rs. 10,000.