Back
Vivo Mobile India Ordered To Pay ₹78,500 By Aligarh Consumer Court For Deficient Service
The has delivered a stern message to smartphone manufacturers: failing to contest a consumer complaint does not absolve them of liability. In a decisive ruling, the Commission held guilty of and directed the company to pay a combined ₹78,500 to a consumer saddled with a defective handset.
The bench, comprising President Shri Hasnain Qureshi and Member Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot , ordered Vivo to refund the full purchase price of ₹23,500 , pay ₹50,000 in compensation for mental harassment, and bear ₹5,000 in litigation expenses.
When a New Smartphone Turns Into a Source of Distress
The saga began on , when complainant Mohd Asbah purchased a Vivo B30 smartphone from , a retail outlet in Aligarh, for ₹23,500. Within months, by , the device started exhibiting troubling performance issues — persistent heating and lagging that rendered the phone increasingly difficult to use.
Asbah visited the authorised Vivo service centre twice in search of a remedy. His efforts proved fruitless. Even more troubling, during his final visit on , service centre staff reportedly behaved rudely and refused to provide proper assistance. Meanwhile, the consumer had been chasing Vivo's customer care helpline since — every attempt dead-ended without resolution.
Silence in the Face of Allegations
What makes this case particularly notable is the procedural posture. Despite being served with adequate notice, Vivo Mobile India chose not to file any written statement before the Commission. The case consequently proceeded , leaving the complainant's affidavit and documentary evidence wholly unrebutted.
The Commission underscored that a manufacturer's absence from proceedings cannot shield it from accountability. With no defence on record, the allegations of substandard after-sales service stood unchallenged.
The Legal Takeaway: Absence Is Not a Defence
In its analysis, the Commission observed that the complainant had
"supported his case with documents,"
and with no rebuttal forthcoming from the opposite party, the case stood proved on its merits. The bench pronounced:
"Complainant's case is proved and he is entitled to the reliefs claimed."
This ruling reinforces a foundational principle of consumer jurisprudence — interim relief and exist precisely to prevent companies from evading responsibility through non-participation.
Ordered to Pay: The Financial Relief
The Commission's directions are specific and enforceable within a strict timeline:
- Refund of ₹23,500 — the complete cost of the defective smartphone
- Compensation of ₹50,000 for mental harassment and misbehaviour by service centre staff
- Litigation expenses of ₹5,000
Vivo has been granted 45 days to comply. Upon making the refund, the company may take possession of the defective handset. The Commission further warned that failure to comply within the stipulated period would attract prosecution under of the , which provides for against non-compliant entities.
A Cautionary Note for Manufacturers
Beyond the immediate relief to the complainant, the judgment serves as a broader cautionary precedent. It signals that consumer forums are prepared to hold manufacturers accountable not just for defective products, but equally for deficient after-sales service — including rude behaviour at service centres and unresponsive customer helplines. For companies that routinely ignore consumer complaints, the message is unambiguous: silence will not save you from the consequences of poor service.
