Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/270

Dharminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Lalwinder Singh Chauhan

22 Jan 2019

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         270 of 2017   

Date of Institution :   17.08.2017

Date of Decision :      22.01.2019

Dharminder Singh aged about 28 years, s/o Bachan Singh, r/o New Cantt Road, Street No.4 (L), Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                                    

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Reliance Corporate I T Park Ltd, Belapur Road, Ghansoli, New Mumbai-400701.
2. Reliance Retail Ltd, Reliance D.X. Mini Shop No.16, Nehru Shopping Centre, Near Bhai Ghaniya Chowk, Faridkot.
3. Life Care Centre, Giani Zail Singh Market, Sadiq Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                                  

..........OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Lalwinder Singh Chauhan, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Dildeep Singh, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to replace the defective mobile with new one and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-.

cc no.270 of 2017

2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 13.05.2017, complainant purchased one mobile handset of brand LYF Water 8 Black from OP-2 against proper bill with one year warranty. It is contended that just after one month of purchase, said mobile stopped getting charged, its battery back up reduced and it used to become hot. Some defects occurred in said mobile and its functioning became effected. Complainant immediately reported the matter to OP-3 i.e Service Centre, but he returned the said mobile to him without doing any repairs after keeping it with him for about seven days. It is submitted that said mobile handset is under warranty cover, and OPs are liable for effective repairs or replacement in case of any defect. Complainant made several requests to OPs to repair or replace the said phone but all in vain as OPs did not pay any heed to listen to his genuine requests. Even legal notice dt 5.07.2017 issued by complainant to OPs also served no purpose, which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has suffered great harassment and mental agony due to this act of OPs and has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief.

3                                                   Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28.08.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                          On receipt of notice, OPs filed reply taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP-1 and therefore, complaint in hand is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that complainant has not produced any cogent evidence to prove his allegations and moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present

cc no.270 of 2017

complaint as jurisdiction for this lies only with the courts in Mumbai. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that allegations of complainant regarding mobile phone in question that charging of phone stopped, problem of reduced battery back up and overheating of product, these allegations require strict proof that complainant has not brought before the Forum. It is asserted that all the allegations levelled by complainant are false, frivolous and incorrect and are denied. It is further averred by OPs that on 19.06.2017, complainant reported the problem of no charging to OP-3 and this defect was completely removed by them by replacing the sub PCBA of product and now, it is functioning properly. It was duly checked by complainant on the date of delivery and he also signed the job sheet after being fully satisfied of services of OPs. It is submitted that complainant again visited them on 4.07.2017 and insisted for replacement of mobile. OP-3 submitted that he tried to convince complainant that after sale services including replacement in any product is provided only after inspection and verification of produce, but complainant refused to handover the product for inspection and demanded replacement and on refusing to make replacement, complainant left the premises and did not report any other complaint regarding his phone to him. It is averred that sub-PCBA of said mobile was replaced by them free of cost. It is asserted that extended warranty for handfree and USB is for 3 months; for charger and battery for a period of 6 months and on product excluding battery, charger, USB is for one year subject to the condition that purchaser activates the extended warranty as per terms and conditions applicable for the same. Further averred that OPs received notice of complainant and they duly gave reply of same on 20.07.2017 and after thorough investigation sent final reply on 31.07.2017. All the other allegations are denied

cc no.270 of 2017

being wrong, incorrect and misguiding. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

 5                                                     Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1, documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Vikram Sharma as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to 8 and then, closed the same.

7                                                                 We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

8                                                    The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone from OP-2 against a proper bill and made cash payment, but just after one month of its purchase, the said mobile stopped getting charged, its battery back up reduced and it used to become hot. Some defects occurred in said mobile and its functioning became effected. Complainant reported the matter to OP-3 i.e Service Centre, but he returned the same without doing any repairs after keeping it with him for about seven days. The said mobile handset is under warranty cover, and OPs are liable for effective repairs or replacement in case of any defect. Despite repeated requests by complainant to OPs to repair or replace the said phone, OPs did not pay any heed to listen to his genuine requests. Legal notice dt

cc no.270 of 2017

5.07.2017 issued by complainant also served no purpose, which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint. On the other hand, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that all allegations levelled by complainant regarding non functioning or non charging of phone; reduced battery back up and overheating of product, all these allegations require strict proof which complainant has not produced before the Forum. All the allegations levelled by complainant are false, frivolous and incorrect and are totally denied. As per OPs on 19.06.2017, complainant reported the problem of not charging of phone to OP-3 and this defect was completely removed by them by replacing the sub PCBA of product and now, it is functioning properly. It was duly checked by complainant on the date of delivery and he also signed the job sheet after being fully satisfied of services of OPs. Complainant again visited them on 4.07.2017 and insisted for replacement of mobile. OP-3 tried to convince complainant that after sale services including replacement in any product is provided only after inspection and verification of product, but complainant refused to handover the product for inspection and demanded replacement and on refusing to make replacement, complainant left the place and did not report any other complaint regarding his phone to him. It is averred that sub-PCBA of said mobile was replaced by them free of cost. It is asserted that extended warranty for handfree and USB is for 3 months; for charger and battery for a period of 6 months and on product excluding battery, charger, USB is for one year subject to the condition that purchaser activates the extended warranty as per terms and conditions applicable for the same. Further averred that OPs duly sent reply to the legal notice issued by complainant. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and reiterated that there is no deficiency in

cc no.270 of 2017

service on the part of answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 9                                                             From the careful perusal of documents, evidence and hearing the arguments, it is observed that there is no denial to the fact that complainant purchased mobile handset in question from OP-2 on 13.05.2017, which was manufactured by OP-1 and there was one year warranty for any defect in the said mobile handset. OP-3 authorized service care centre of OP-1 did not provide proper and sufficient services to complainant by doing effective repairs. OP-3 being authorized service care centre on behalf of OP-1 and Op-1 who is the manufacturer of said mobile phones did not bother to redress the grievance of complainant by providing effective and timely services and therefore, in these circumstances, only shopkeeper has no liability for providing relief to complainant as redressal sought is to be provided by OP-1 and 3. It is also brought to our attention that OP-1 and 3 have neither provided requisite services by making effective repairs nor have bothered to redress the grievance of complainant.

10                                         From the above discussion, we are of considered opinion that OPs are liable for deficiency in service and have caused huge harassment and mental agony to complainant. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OPs. OPs being the maker of mobile phone in question and warranty, if any, is to be given by manufacturing company through their authorized Service Centres. OPs are directed to replace the mobile handset of complainant with new one of same model. Complainant is also directed to return the old handset to OPs at the time of receiving the new one. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(five thousands) jointly and severally to complainant as consolidated

cc no.270 of 2017

compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum

Dated: 22.01.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)                                (Ajit Aggarwal)                     

Member                                              President