IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM.
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S., President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
CC No.32/18(filed on 9/2/18)
Complainant : Jolly James,
Advocate,
Residing at Eatticakl House,
Mundakayam PO, Kottayam
Pin:686513.
(Adv. Deepthy S.Nath)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Reliance Retail Ltd.,
KL-KTM,JC-01,XVI 118M, Aditya
commercial Arcade, 3rd floor,
M.C.Road, Nagampadom, Kottayam-
686001.
2) Reliance India Ltd, Registered
Office,III floor, Court house,
L.T.Marg,Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-
400002.
(Ops 1&2 Adv.Sreenivas V.Pai)
ORDER
Sri. Manulal V.S., President
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant had purchased a mobile phone type 4G LYF LS 5201 water displayed at MRP of Rs. 20,249/- with an offer price of Rs.7,984/- along with one year warranty from flipkart on 1-6-2017. After first charging, the mobile phone was stuck and it hesitated to start. After two hours it automatically started functioning and thereafter same problem occurred. On 8-11-2017 suddenly the mobile became switched off then the complainant made several attempts to restart it. The very next morning complainant approached first respondent’s service centre at Kottayam. After two hours it was informed that they need two more days to find out the complaint. After two days on enquiry, the service person informed the complainant that, he need some more time for getting approval from the company to repair the mobile under warranty. On 18-11-2017 when the complainant contacted the service person they gave estimation cost amounting to Rs. 9,385/- as repair charges. On the same day complainant found the price of the mobile in amazone as Rs. 8,820/- at 8.15pm and in flipkart the price amounting to Rs. 8,500/- at 8.17pm. Actual quote of the mobile purchased by the complainant was only Rs. 7,984/-. The complainant has not exposed the said mobile neither in rain or in water, he took good care of his mobile. The allegation made by the opposite parties that water inside the set is false and fabricated. When the complainant denied the allegation the service person stated that there is a colour change inside the set thus it cannot be claimed under warranty. According to the complainant it was foul play of the respondents for avoiding complainant’s claim under warranty. The complainant further stated in complaint that he had checked the online reviews of customers who brought the same mobile phone and he understood that the product does not have minimum quality as per the value received by the respondent due to the deficiency of respondent’s product , complainant lost many contacts and files which is important for his job. The complainant issued a lawyers notice demanding the value of the product. The opposite parties sent a reply notice denying all the allegations stating false contentions. The acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Upon notice opposite parties appeared before the forum and filed joint version contending as follows:
The first and second opposite parties are the subsidiary companies engaged in selling telecom products of Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. The opposite parties had imported the best quality mobile phones in bulk and had offered the same with competent process along with most attractive tariff packs as ‘Bundled Offers’ for their network users . Complainant had purchased “LYF LS-5201 Water Fis Black’ mobiles phone, having the maximum retail value of Rs. 20,249/- on 1-6-2017 spending an amount of Rs. 7984/-, complainant had purchased the same as per the terms of the warranty conditions.
The allegation in the complaint that after first charging the mobile phone was stuck and hesitated to start and further that it automatically started functioning and the same problem occurred thrice are stoutly denied as false. On 8-11-2017 the complainant had visited the Jio Centre of the opposite parties and submitted the phone with product dead condition alleging no power problem. On due inspection and verification of the same, in the presence of the complainant, service engineer found that the Liquid logged near H/F connector. Service engineer immediately showed that to the complainant and informed that the said damage was not covered in warranty as product in warranty was in void state as per clause 5 of warranty terms and conditions. A customer information slip was generated in this regard and the same was handed over to the complainant and the same was duly signed by him. Photographs of the phone evidencing the water damage were also taken in the presence of the complainant.
The warranty extended to the product was provided as per the Limited Warranty Terms and conditions and warranty is subjected to the same. As per warranty terms and conditions clause no.1 standard warranty of the hands free and USB cable extended for a period of 3 months from date of original retail purchase. Standard warranty on the charger and battery of product is extended for a period of 6 months from date of original retail purchase. Standard warranty on the product excluding battery charger, USB cable and hands free is extended for a period of 12 months.
It is further averred that the service officials had informed the complainant that , since the defect is a customer induced damage the same was not covered under warranty and that, the cost of replacement of the parts and repair charges had to be borne by the complainant. As per the instruction of the complainant the officials had handed over the estimate of repairs to the complainant , but the complainant had chosen to leave the Jio centre immediately without allowing the official a chance to create a job sheet abandoning the phone at the jio point and not approving the estimate. The opposite parties cannot accept the demand of the complainant for free of cost repair as it was against the terms of warranty. The opposite parties had properly responded to the concern of the complainant and offered service, which the complainant had refused to accept. The complainant had not contacted the service centre on 18-11-2017. Since the complainant had left the service centre abandoning his mobile phone over there, not even allowing the officials to create a job sheet, the official of the opposite parties had been contacting the complainant requesting him to collect the phone from service centre since , the complainant had refused to collect his phone on his own, the official of the service centre had created a job sheet on 18-11-2017, mentioning the grievances of the complainant and the fact that the phone was water damaged when the same was entrusted with the opposite party. The official had to visit the residence of the complainant in order to hand over the phone to him .but apart from receiving the phone the complainant had taken a stubborn stand not to sign the job sheet.
The repair cost of a phone is determined by the price of the spare parts needed to be replaced in the process of repair. The market operating price of a phone on specific period is determined taking of various other factors into consideration. It has no connection with price of spare parts, when such product is subject to repair. Hence the availability of the said phone in various websites on lesser price shall not cause any difference to the price of the spare parts , ought to be replaced while repairing the phone.
The opposite parties are providing the service of all the mobile phones as per the terms and conditions of the contract of warranty during the warranty period. The alleged loss sustained by the complainant is due to his own contribution. The complainant had failed to take proper care of the product and caused damage to the same. The opposite parties are ready and willing to repair the phone purchased by the complainant as per the terms and conditions of warranty. There is no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties.
Evidence of this case consists of the deposition of Pw1 and exhibit A1 to A8 and Mo1 from the side of the complainant and deposition of Dw1 and exhibits B1 and B2 from the side of the opposite parties.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and entitled for any reliefs as prayed?
-
Point number 1
The opposite parties admit that the Complainant had purchased a mobile phone type 4G LYF LS 5201 water displayed at an MRP of Rs. 20,249/- with an offer price of Rs. 7,984/- along with one year warranty from flipkart on 1-6-2017. Exhibit A1 the bill shows that the complainant had paid Rs. 7,984/- for the said phone. There is no dispute on the fact that on 8-11-2017 Pw1 had entrusted the phone to opposite parties on dead condition alleging no power problem. Pw1 who is the complainant would depose before the forum that on 18-11-2017 the service person of the opposite parties gave estimation cost amounting to Rs. 9,385/- as repair charges. Exhibit A3 job sheet dated 17-11-2017 proves that the opposite parties had estimated the cost of repair as Rs. 9385/-. On perusal of A3 we can see that it was recorded as “ dead in condition water inside the set” estimate cost not approved by customer.
The specific case of the Pw1 is that though the phone is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect during the coverage of the warranty the opposite parties were not ready to provide the fruits of warranty to him. Exhibit A2 warranty card proves that Standard warranty on the phone excluding battery charger, USB cable and hands free is for a period of 12 months. On the other hand the opposite parties contended that the damage was due to Liquid logged near H/F connector and the said damage is not covered under warranty as product in warranty was in void state as per clause 5 of warranty terms and conditions. Dw1 deposed that when the estimated cost for repair informed to the complainant , he left the service centre by abandoning the phone there .
Clause 5 (a) of the warranty terms and conditions says that “the product has been subjected to abnormal use or conditions, improper storage, exposure to excessive moisture or dampness, exposure to excessive temperature, unauthorised modifications, unauthorised repair, abuse, accident, acts of god, spill of food or liquids, cosmetic damage, improper installation and breakage or damage to alternate (otherwise than by reason of any defect) shall not be covered under warranty coverage”.
Dw1 deposed that exhibit B1 customer slip was created in the presence of the customer . If the defect is identified at the time of creating the customer slip it would be recorded in the customer slip. He further deposed that B2 job sheet was generated on the basis of slip number of B2 . On perusal of B1 and B2 we can see that the slip number entered into B1 and job sheet number entered into B2 are different. Moreover it is stated in B1 that the issue is described as no power. Whereas it is stated in B2 as ‘dead in condition water inside the set’ estimate cost not approved by customer. Admittedly B2 is generated through the computer on 17-11-2017 which is after 10 days from the creation of B1 customer slip. Specific case of the opposite parties is that the damage is due to water logging in the phone however it is not recorded in B1. Thus we can presume that if the damage of the phone is identified by the opposite parties in the presence of Pw1 as due to water logging it would have been recorded by the service persons at the time of creation of B1. It is pertinent to note that though Dw1 deposed that the photographs of the phone were taken at the time of inspection, it was not produced to substantiate their contention. The opposite parties did not produce any evidence to show that the defect of the phone was due to water logging in the device.
Though the complainant alleged manufacturing defect on phone he did not adduce any evidence to prove his allegation on this regard. Without any expert opinion we cannot accept the contention of the complainant that the phone has been suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. No doubt the phone has became defective under the cover of the Exibit A2 warranty. As per the terms and conditions of the Exhibit A2 the opposite parties are liable to repair the product at free of charge. Thus we are of the opinion that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service by not repairing the phone as per the contract of warranty offered to the complainant at the time of purchase of the phone.
In this circumstances we allow the complaint in part pass the following order.
1)We hereby direct the opposite parties to rectify the defects of mobile phone type 4G LYF LS 5201 at free of cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Complainant is directed to produce the Mo1 phone before the opposite parties within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order .
2) Opposite parties are hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship caused to him by the deficiency in service from opposite parties.
3) Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 2000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.
Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the awarded amounts will carry 9% from the date of this order.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 6th day of February, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
PW1-Jolly James
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1-Bill
A2-Warranty Terms and Conditions
A3-Job sheet
A4-Copy of price print out
A5-Copy of print out
A6-Copy of print out
A7-Copy of print out
A8-Letter dated 20/12/17 issued by Reliance Retail limited
A9-Copy of customer information slip dtd 8/11/17
Court Exhibits
Mo1-Mobile
Mo2-Mobile Box
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Dw1-Vigil P.K
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
B1-Customer Information Slip dated 8/11/17
B2-Job Sheet
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
