DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB, CAMP COURT AT DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, AMRITSAR

 

        Consumer Complaint No : RBT/CC/2018/3

                 Date of Institution : 01.01.2018

                 Date of Decision : 06.06.2022

Ravi Kant Aggarwal son of Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal Aged 55 years resident of House No. 37, White Avenue, Maqbool Road, Amritsar-143001, Punjab. Mobile No. 93561-35325. 

…Complainant

Versus

1.Homeshop 18.com Ltd., 7th Floor, FC-24, Sector 16-A Film City Noida-201301 U.P. through its Parnter/Prop./Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2.North India Top Company (P) Limited C/o ACORN Warehouse & Logistic Park 68 Village Kapriwas & Malpura Taluq Dharuhera District Rewari-Haryana through its Partner/Prop/Manager/Authorized Signatory. 

3.Reliance JIO Service Centre Opp. Dhingr Partrol Pump, Majitha Road, Amritsar-143001, Punjab through its Prop/Partner/Manager/Authorized Signatory.   

4.Reliance Retail Limited Shed No. 77/80, Indian Corporation Godown, Mankoli Naka, Village Dapode Tehsil Bhiwandi District Thane Mharashtra-421302 through its Director/Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum: Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover, President

     Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg, Member

Present: Sh. Sanjeet Singh Adv. Counsel for complainant. 

   None for opposite party No. 1 & 2.

   Sh. Gursher Singh Adv. Counsel for opposite party No. 3 & 4.

ORDER BY SH. ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh, dated 26.11.2021 for its disposal. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, (as amended upto date) against the Homeshop 18.Com Ltd., and others (hereinafter called as opposite parties).

2. The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased On-line Mobile Set from the opposite party No. 1 after watching the tempting and fascinating advertisement by the Homeshop 18 of LYF Mobile Model LYF FLAME 7 Black (581107923) vide IME No. 911508454988403 & 911508455988402 on 25.9.2016 for Rs. 3,499/- (including shipping charges of Rs. 150/-) Order dated 24.9.2016 and Invoice dated 25.9.2016 against Invoice No. NITQRH/DRH/09/2016/7590497 Order No. 137947411 with one year warranty plus additional one year warranty of its free services and repairs.

3. The grievance of the complainant is that the above said mobile within warranty period was not working properly i.e. Display and hand free problem and the complainant contacted the opposite party No. 1 on toll free number. On the advice of the opposite party No. 1 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 on 18.5.2017 and brought to their notice regarding the said problem and the opposite party No. 2 kept the mobile set of the complainant. On next day i.e. 19.5.2017 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 to get his handset but the opposite party told the complainant that his mobile set has battery problem and if the battery will be changed the problem will be solved. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 2 changed the battery and charged Rs. 383/- and issued a bill dated 19.5.2017 and assured that the mobile set is now perfectly OK. It is alleged that after the five days the mobile set in question created the same problem and regarding this problem the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 number of times, but of no use. Even the opposite party No. 2 refused to issue Job Sheet with regard to the hand set in question. The opposite party No. 3 told the complainant that the handset is causing frequent issues due to manufacturing defects and phone is of low quality made with cheap components being low price phone. Thus, the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs:-

I.To refund the cost of the mobile set of Rs. 3,499/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase.  

II.To pay Rs. 80,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 13,500/- on account of litigation expenses. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of the complaint is false, incorrect and baseless. It is submitted that the complainant is aware that for after sales service the manufacturer of the product and its authorized service centre are to be approached. The present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No. 1 as it is neither a manufacture nor a service provider. The opposite party No. 1 only provides a marketing platform or portal to the sellers for displaying and selling their products. It is admitted that the complainant received the above said mobile set on 26.9.2016 alongwith warranty card of the product and after purchasing the above said mobile set the complainant never contacted with the opposite party No. 1. All other allegations of the complainant are denied. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint against the opposite party No. 1.

5. The opposite party No. 2 has filed the same reply as filed by the opposite party No. 1.

6. The opposite party No. 3 has filed written statement by taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, no cause of action, complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties, no jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is submitted that the Standard Warranty on the handset and USB cable is extended for a period of 3 months from the date of purchase and standard warranty on charger and battery of product is extended for a period of 6 months from the date of original retail purchase. The standard warranty on the product is subject to warranty terms and conditions of the product. It is further submitted that on 18.2.2017 the complainant visited the opposite party No. 3 for the very first time to report the alleged problem of charger not working properly but the complainant did not report any other problem of the product and to resolve the issue the opposite party No. 3 free of cost replaced the charging cable of the product under warranty and after that the product had been functioning properly and in this regard the complainant signed the Job Sheet No. 8008132332. On 25.3.2017 the complainant again visited the opposite party No. 3 to report the problem of “Handset Hang Problem” and after inspection of the product the opposite party No. 3 did not find any hardware related issue in the product and updated the software of the product and the mobile set was working properly. On 6.4.2017 the complainant again visited the opposite party No. 3 to report the problem of software update (virus) in the product but the opposite party No. 3 after inspection did not find any hardware related issue in the product. It is further alleged that after 8 months of purchase the complainant visited the opposite party No. 3 on 19.5.2017 to report the alleged problem of “Handset is not working due to battery” and after inspection by the Engineer of the opposite party No. 3 it is noticed that the battery of product was bulged/swollen and the same showed to the complainant and told that as per terms and conditions of warranty of battery is 6 months but the 8 months have elapsed since purchase of product and the warranty of the battery expired and with the consent of complainant the battery was replaced and the mobile set was working properly. On 26.7.2017 the complainant again visited the opposite party No. 3 with the problem of “Hanging of the Product” but the opposite party No. 3 after inspection did not find any hardware problem in the product. The complainant again on 21.11.2017 visited the opposite party No. 3 to report the problem of “not charging of the product” and after inspection the Engineer of opposite party No. 3 found that the touch/display of the product was broken and damaged and the same showed to the complainant and told that the touch and display of the product required to be replaced and gave estimate to the complainant but the complainant refused to pay any charges and insisted for free of cost repair. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

7. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 4 has suffered the statement on 3.8.2018 that the written version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 3 may kindly be read as written version of on behalf of opposite party No. 4.

8. In order to prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of job sheet Ex.C-3, affidavit of Vijay Sethi Ex.C-1/A and closed the evidence.

9. To rebut the case of complainant the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Apurv Nrula Ex.O.P1/1, copy of authorization letter Ex.R1W-1/1, copy of retail invoice Ex.R1W-1/2, copy of the warranty card Ex.R1W-1/3, copy of terms of use Ex.R1W1-/4 and affidavit of Rajiv Mehra Ex.O.P-2/1, copy of authorization letter Ex.R2W-1/1, copy of retail invoice Ex.R2W-1/2, copy of the warranty card Ex.R2W-1/3 and evidence closed by opposite parties No. 1 & 2.

10. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties No. 3 & 4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikram Sharma Ex.O.P3.4/A and documents Ex.O.P3.4/1 to Ex.O.P3.4/13 and closed the evidence.

11. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 has suffered the statement that on the verbal instructions of Bharti & Associates firm, Delhi received on whats app, I have got no instructions to appear on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, as such a fresh notice was sent to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vide order dated 4.8.2021 and since then none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 till date.

12. We have heard the arguments of the parties and have gone through the records of the file. 

13. The complainant alleged in the complaint that he had purchased the LYF Mobile on 25.9.2016 for Rs. 3,499/- through opposite party No. 1. The complainant alleged in the complaint that within warranty period the above said mobile set occurred defects of Display  and hand free problem and was not working properly. The complainant further alleged that the complainant approached the opposite party service centre more than 15 times, but every time the opposite party make one pretext or the other without any baseless grounds. It is further alleged by the complainant that after that the opposite party No. 3 refused to issue the Job Sheets with regard to the hand set in question. The opposite party No. 1 filed written version and taken the objection of maintainability as the opposite party No. 1 neither a manufacture nor service provider. The opposite party No. 2 has filed the same reply. The opposite party No. 3 admitted that the complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 on various occasions with the defective mobile set. The opposite party No. 3 alleged in the written version that every time there is software problem in the mobile set and after inspection did not find any hardware issue in the product. However, on 19.5.2017 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 with the problem of Handset is not working due to Battery and after inspection by the Engineer of the opposite party No. 3 it is noticed that the battery of the product was swollen and the same showed to the complainant and told that as per terms and conditions of warranty of battery is 6 months but the 8 months have elapsed since the purchase of product and the warranty of the battery expired and with the consent of the complainant the battery was replaced. The opposite party No. 3 further alleged in the written version that on 26.7.2017 the complainant again visited the opposite party No. 3 with the problem of Hanging of the Product. But the opposite party No. 3 after inspection did not find any hardware problem in the product. 

14. To prove his case the complainant has produced the bill Ex.C-2 and Job Sheets issued by the opposite party No. 3 as Ex.C-3 vide which the complainant has approached the opposite party No. 3 for defective mobile set. 

15. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 3 has produced several documents and Job Sheets vide which the complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 on various occasions with the defective mobile set. It is established from the perusal of the documents and evidence produced by both the parties that the complainant has purchased the mobile set in question and the same occurred defects which was not rectified by the opposite party No. 3 despite several visits  of complainant. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the mobile set in question has suffered with manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified. It is established that the complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 for more than 15 times with the defects which established that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question which cannot be rectified. Therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed qua the opposite parties No. 3 & 4 and the opposite parties No. 3 & 4 are directed to refund the purchased amount of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs. 3,499/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of purchase of mobile set i.e. 25.9.2016. The opposite parties No. 3 & 4 are further directed to pay Rs. 3,300/- on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties free of costs by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to District Consumer Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       6th Day of June, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member