BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 403 of 2017
Date of Institution: 16.06.2017
Date of Decision: 17.01.2018
Data Ram Mishra son of S.P.Mehra, resident of 3773, Bagichi Mohan Singh, Outside Ghee Mandi, Amritsar, Mobile 94632-55550.
Complainant
Versus
- M/s.Singh Telecom, Near Bus Stand, Amritsar through its proprietor/ partner/ authorized person to receive the summon.
- M/s.Reliance Jio Infocom Limited, Service centre 273-J 3rd Floor S L S Tower, Opposite Jaycee Motors, 100 feet Road, Amritsar through its Proprietor/ Partner/ authorized signatory.
- Reliance Retail Limited, 5 TTC Indl.Area, Thane Belapur Rd.Ghansoli Navi Mumbai-400701 through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Authorised Signatory.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: For the Complainant: In person.
For Opposite Party No.1: Exparte.
For Opposite Parties No.2 and 3: Sh.Raman Aggawal, Advocate.
Coram
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member.
Order dictated by:
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member
1. The complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he purchased mobile set LYF LS 5009 white IMEI No.86945202060 1970 and IMEI No.869452022601978 from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.7000/- vide bill No.2703 dated 14.7.2016 and hence the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Parties as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Mobile Set in question from the date of its purchase is defective and screen lives blank most of the time and some time the Mobile Set in question is not functioning properly, some contact numbers deleting. After battery remove and then again fit and then the phone starts working and after three four days, it become non functioning. In this regard, the complainant met Opposite Party No.1 who forwarded to the complainant to Opposite Party No. 2 who is the service centre of the company. The complainant gave the Mobile Set in question for its repair to Opposite Party No. 2, who tried to repair the same, but after some days, the again started giving same problems. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 be directed to replace the Mobile Set in question with new one or in alternative refund the price of the Mobile Set in question alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of purchase till realization.
b) Opposite Parties be directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing him mental tension and harassment.
c) Costs of the complaint be also granted.
d) Any other relief to which this Forum may deem fit, be granted.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, hence Opposite Party No.1 is proceeded against exparte.
3. On the other hand, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the Opposite Party No. 2. It is submitted that the complainant has falsely stated that Opposite Party No. 2 is the authorised service centre for the disputed product. Opposite Party No. 2 is neither the authorised service centre of the company nor the manufacturer of the said product. There is no privity of the contract between the Opposite Party No. 2 and the complainant, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against Opposite Party No. 2. On merits, it is submitted that the product was properly checked by the complainant before taking delivery of the product. It is submitted that the product was returned to the complainant on the same day i.e. 30.9.3016 for which the complainant signed and acknowledged job sheet. It is further submitted that the complainant again visited Opposite Party No. 2 on 21.3.2017 to report the alleged problem of slow processing of the product, for which the complainant filled and completed the customer Information slip made available by Opposite Party No. 2. But however, after inspection and verification of the product, Opposite Party No. 2 did not find any hardware related issue in the product or any issue of slow processing of the product as allegedly reported by the complainant and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of document Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Vikram Sharma Ex.OP2,3/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex. OP2,3/2 to Ex.OP2,3/8 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.
6. We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
7. The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and contended that he purchased mobile set LYF LS 5009 white IMEI No.86945202060 1970 and IMEI No.869452022601978 from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.7000/- vide bill No.2703 dated 14.7.2016 and hence the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Parties as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Mobile Set in question from the date of its purchase is defective and screen lives blank most of the time and some time the Mobile Set in question is not functioning properly, some contact numbers deleting. After battery remove and then again fit and then the phone starts working and after three four days, it become non functioning. In this regard, the complainant met Opposite Party No.1 who forwarded to the complainant to Opposite Party No. 2 who is the service centre of the company. The complainant gave the Mobile Set in question for its repair to Opposite Party No. 2, who tried to repair the same, but after some days, the again started giving same problems. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the Opposite Party No. 2. It is submitted that the complainant has falsely stated that Opposite Party No. 2 is the authorised service centre for the disputed product. Opposite Party No. 2 is neither the authorised service centre of the company nor the manufacturer of the said product. There is no privity of the contract between the Opposite Party No. 2 and the complainant, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against Opposite Party No. 2. It is submitted that the product was properly checked by the complainant before taking delivery of the product. It is submitted that the product was returned to the complainant on the same day i.e. 30.9.3016 for which the complainant signed and acknowledged job sheet. It is further submitted that the complainant again visited Opposite Party No. 2 on 21.3.2017 to report the alleged problem of slow processing of the product, for which the complainant filled and completed the customer Information slip made available by Opposite Party No. 2. But however, after inspection and verification of the product, Opposite Party No. 2 did not find any hardware related issue in the product or any issue of slow processing of the product as allegedly reported by the complainant and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. But we are of the view that if there was no defect in the Mobile Set in question, what was the need for the complainant to visit time and again to the Opposite Parties for the redressal of his grievances to set right the Mobile Set in question who has purchased the same from Opposite Party No.1 by paying his hard earned money. Hence, we are not agree with the contention of the Opposite Party No. 2 that there is no defect in the Mobile Set in question.
9. In such a situation, we direct the complainant to hand over the Mobile Set in question to the service centre of the company within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, the service centre will repair the Mobile Set in question within further 30 days, to the satisfaction of the complainant, free of cost and in case the Mobile Set in question is not repairable, then the Opposite Parties shall jointly and severally directed to replace the Mobile Set in question with new one of same make and model. But however, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 17.01.2018. (Rachna Arora) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Presiding Member
