| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.90 of 30-03-2017 Decided on 10-11-2017 Vikram Singh aged about 27 years S/o Shanker Singh C/o C-428, Type-III, Opposite Gandhi Ground, Thermal Colony, Bathinda . ........Complainant Versus 1.M/S Reliance Retail Limited, Reliance Mini DX Shop No.2, 3 Clock Tower Complex, 100ft Road, Bathinda, through its Authorized Signatory. 2.Reliance Retail Limited, PB-BTND-JC-01, Reliance Mall, Bathinda, through its Authorized person. (Deleted) 3.Reliance Retail Limited, 5 TTC Indl. Area Thane Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400701 .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- Complainant: None. For opposite party Nos.1 & 3: Sh.W.S Khurmi, Advocate. Opposite party No.2: Deleted. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Vikram Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M/S Reliance Retail Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he purchased Reliance mobile handset for Rs.14,404/- from opposite party No.1 on 30.1.2016. It is alleged that after sometime, the mobile handset started giving the problems of mic and outgoing voice. The complainant deposited the mobile handset with opposite party No.2 for repair on 27.12.2016 alongwith original bill. Opposite party No.2 returned the mobile handset to the complainant after its due repair, but the mobile handset again gave the same problem. Thereafter he deposited the mobile handset with opposite party No.2 for repair on 14.1.2017 vide job sheet alongwith original bill. Opposite party No.2 returned the mobile handset to complainant after its due repair. It is further alleged that the mobile handset started giving the same problem. On 20.2.2017, the complainant deposited the mobile handset with opposite party No.2 for repair, it returned the same to him after its due repair. As per complainant, the mobile handset again started giving the same problem. On 7.3.2017, he deposited the mobile handset with opposite party No.2 for repair, it returned the same to him after its due repair. On 18.3.2017, he again deposited the mobile handset with opposite party No.2 for repair, it returned the same to him after its due repair. It is also alleged that the complainant deposited the mobile handset to opposite party No.2 for 5 times, but it failed to remove the defect. It shows that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile handset and same is not repairable. The complainant time and again requested opposite parties that the mobile handset is not repairable and its price may be returned to him, but they did not listen to his requests. Opposite party No.1 is not serving the complainant properly. It is further alleged that due to this attitude of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension and agony etc. He is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. By this complaint, he has prayed for directions to opposite parties to pay Rs.14,404/-. Hence, this complaint. In view of statement suffered by the complainant, name of opposite party No.2 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. Opposite party Nos.1 and 3 did not file the written version within the statutory period. As such, the case was fixed for evidence of parties. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 29.3.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopies of job sheets, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C6); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.C7) and submitted written arguments. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party Nos.1 and 3 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikram Sharma dated 26.9.2017, (Ex.OP3/1); photocopy of power of attorney, (Ex.OP3/2); photocopy of customer information slips, (Ex.OP3/3); photocopies of job sheets and customer information slips, (Ex.OP3/4 to Ex.OP3/12); photocopy of warranty terms and conditions, (Ex.OP3/13) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for opposite parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by the complainant. Although, no written version was filed by opposite party Nos.1 and 3, but in the affidavit of Vikram Sharma, (Ex.OP3/1) tendered by opposite party Nos.1 and 3, it is revealed that on 27.12.2016, the complainant visited opposite party No.2 to report the 'mic' problem in the product for which he filled and completed customer information slip, made available by opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 created job sheet. After inspection and verification of the product, to resolve the issue, opposite party No.2 cleaned the Sub PCBA of the product. After cleaning of Sub PCBA, the product has been functioning normally. It was properly checked by the complainant before taking delivery of the product from opposite party No.2 and complainant signed and acknowledged the job sheet. It is further revealed that thereafter on 14.1.2017, the complainant visited opposite party No.2 to report the problem of battery low/backup issue in the product. The customer information slip made available with opposite party No.2. After inspection and verification of the product, opposite party No.2 did not find any hardware related issue in it. Opposite party No.2 updated the software of the product to resolve the functional issue. After updating the software, the product has been functioning normally. It was properly checked by the complainant before taking its delivery. It was returned to the complainant on the same day. On 20.2.2017, he visited opposite party No.2 to report the problem of outgoing voice issue and incoming audio issue in the product. After depositing the product, opposite party No.2 created the job sheet. It is also revealed that after inspection and verification of the product, opposite party No.2 referred the matter to the service team at central office of opposite party No.3, but due to system error, the service request got cancelled. Opposite party No.2 requested the complainant to visit on next day so that the product could be inspected and verified. The product was returned to the complainant on the same day. On 7.3.2017, he visited opposite party No.2 to report the problem of outgoing voice issue and incoming audio issue in the product. Opposite party No.2 replaced the PBA of the product free of cost and product started functioning normally. The product was properly checked by the complainant before taking its delivery. On 18.3.2017, he visited opposite party No.2 to report miscellaneous problems in the product. After inspection and verification of the product, opposite party No.2 replaced the Sub PCBA and PBA of the product free of cost to resolve the issue. Thereafter the product started functioning normally and complainant checked the same before taking its delivery. All other averments of the complainant are also denied in the affidavit. The complainant has submitted that the material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the complainant time and again approached opposite party No.2 due to problem in the product. The re-occurring of the problem in the product again and again only leads to inference that there is manufacturing defect. Therefore, the complainant was entitled to replacement of the mobile handset with new one or refund of its price. He has suffered harassment and mental tension etc. due to act and conduct of opposite parties. Therefore, he is also entitled to compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 3 has submitted that the complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands. The facts revealed by the complainant himself prove that there is no deficiency. He purchased the mobile handset on 30.1.2016. The first complaint was lodged by him on 27.12.2016 i.e. after about 11 months. It is to be presumed that he used the product properly for about 11 months. Therefore, the averment of the manufacturing defect stands ruled out from this fact itself. The warranty was for one year, which was to expire on 30.1.2017. The second complaint was lodged by the complainant on 20.2.2017 i.e. after more than one month after warranty period. Opposite party No.2 still provided services. The next complaints were lodged on 7.3.2017 and 18.3.2017, which were also lodged after expiry of warranty period. The complainant was still provided service free of cost and PBA was replaced with new one. He has also placed on record job sheets, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C6). The first complaint was regarding outgoing issue and second complaint was regarding battery life issue and third complaint after warranty was regarding outgoing voice issue. The complainant himself has admitted that these problems were resolved by opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 has provided free of cost service to the complainant as and when the problem was reported. Now, the warranty period has already expired. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the product on 30.1.2016. The first complaint lodged by the complainant was on dated 27.12.2016 i.e. after about 11 months. Had there been any manufacturing problem, the complainant was not to use this product for continuous period of about 11 months. This fact itself rules out the averments of the complainant regarding manufacturing defect. The first problem was regarding outgoing voice issue and second complaint was dated 14.1.2017 and issue was regarding battery life. The complainant himself has pleaded that he made complaints with opposite parties for 5 times and all the complaints were properly attended by them. In these circumstances, some complaints were admittedly after warranty period, which were also attended to. Now, this complaint has been filed after warranty period and averment of the complainant is that he reported the complaint for 5 times, but opposite parties failed to remove the defects. This averment is against admitted facts by the complainant himself. He himself has pleaded that opposite party No.2 attended five complaints and returned the mobile handset after doing needful. In these circumstances, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of opposite parties. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 10-11-2017 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
