DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 129
Instituted on: 03.04.2017
Decided on: 04.07.2017
Pritpal Singh Sidhu Advocate son of S. Ajmer Singh Sidhu, resident of Dhura, Teshil Dhuri, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. City Communication Court Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Owner.
2. Iyf Care Center Railway Chowk Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Manager/ owner.
3. Reliance Retail Limited Shed No.77/80, Indian Corporation Godown, Mankoli Naka, Village Dapode, Tal Bhiwandi, District Thane, Maharashtra-421302 through its M.D. / Chairman. ….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri Sukhbir Singh Saini, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1 : Shri Amolak Kumar
FOR OPP. PARTIESNo.2&3 : Shri Nem Kumar Advocate.
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Pritpal Singh Sidhu Advocate, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a LYF WATER FI Black mobile from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.11500/- vide invoice no.9434 dated 17.01.2017 under one year warranty. From the very beginning, the mobile set in question started giving problems of auto switch off, hanging and battery backup low for which he approached OP no.2 who kept the set and issued job card no.8008504358. Thereafter on 24.03.2017 the OP no.2 returned the set but the problems were not cured. The set in question was shown even to some private mechanic who also admitted that the set is having manufacturing defect. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to replace the mobile set with new one of same model or in the alternative refund the purchase amount of the said mobile phone i.e. Rs.11500/ along with interest @12% per annum from 17.01.2017 till realization,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by the OP no.1, sale of mobile set in question to the complainant is admitted vide invoice number 9434 dated 17.01.2017. It is admitted that the complainant was sent to the Op no.2 i.e. service centre of the company.
3. In reply filed by OPs No. 2&3, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability and jurisdiction have been taken up. On merits, it is submitted that on 21.03.2017 complainant visited the OP no.2 to report the problem of hanging and low battery backup problem in the product for which he filled and completed customer information slip and job sheet was issued to him. It is further submitted that after inspection and verification of the product the OP no.2 did not find any fault in the product and also did not find any hardware and software problem for which OP no.2 noted remark of Device Working OK No Fault Noticed on the job sheet. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
4. The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP1/1, Ex.OPs2&3/1, Ex.OPs2&3/2 and closed evidence.
5. From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that complainant purchased a LYF WATER FI Black mobile from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.11500/- vide invoice no.9434 dated 17.01.2017 under one year warranty which is Ex.C-2 on record. The complainant has stated that from the very beginning, the mobile set in question started giving problems of auto switch off, hanging and battery backup low for which he approached OP no.2 who kept the set and issued job card no.8008504358. Thereafter on 24.03.2017 the OP no.2 returned the set but the problems were not solved. It is also complainant's case that the set in question was shown even to some private mechanic who also admitted that the set is having manufacturing defect.
6. The complainant has stated that the OP no.2 had admitted that the set is having manufacturing defect and it cannot be cured by repair. But, surprisingly, to prove this fact that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question the complainant has not produced any document which could show that the OP no.2 had admitted that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. Moreover, the complainant has not produced report of an expert to show that the mobile set in question is having manufacturing defect. Even the complainant has not produced the alleged report of private mechanic from whom he got checked his mobile set in question and he also admitted that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. So, in view of the above discussion, we find that the complainant has failed to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question.
7. It is not in dispute that the complainant approached the OP no.2 with problems of hanging and battery backup in the mobile set within the warranty period. The OP no.2 has stated that mobile set was in Ok condition and there was no fault in it but the OP no.2 has not produced record any proof which proves that there is no defect regarding hanging and battery backup. So, we feel that OPs no.2 and 3 are liable to repair the mobile set in question of the complainant because it is within the warranty period.
8. For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs no.2 and 3 to repair the mobile set in question of the complainant. We further order the OPs no.2 and 3 to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
9. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.
Announced
July 4, 2017
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member Member President
