Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/38/2018

Bijaya Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

1-The Reliance Retail Limited through CDM - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. R.N. Debata, B.D. Sahu, P. Debata

03 Aug 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer.Case No.- 38/2018

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Bijaya Sahu,

S/O- Padan Sahu

R/O- Rairakhol NAC, Po/PS-Rairakhol,

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.                                                                  …..Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Reliance Retail Limited Through C.M.D

3^rd Floor, Court House Lokmanya Tilak Marg

Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400002

2. The Relaince retail Limited, Through Divisional Manager

At-Budharja (City Mall)

4^th Floor Sambalpur-768004                                         ….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :-         Sri. R.N. Debata, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                     :-         Sri P.K.Mahapatra, Advocate & Associates.

 

DATE OF HEARING :04.07.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 03.08.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased a Mobile for his use. The O.P No. 1 is the producer and seller of mobile phones under the brand name “Reliance Retail Limited” in India through different shops and the O.P No. 2 is the servicing centre of the O.P No. 1. The Complainant on 30.01.2016 purchased the Mobile Model No. LS- 5501, IMEI No. 868818020103038, IMEI No. 351886013752503, Charger No. RCKCAKB00002494 of OP No. 1 for Rs. 25,000/-. The Complainant in course of operation of the Mobile noticed defects like “Hang in Application/Function and Display Flickering issue” and as such found to be a defective piece. On 7.12.2017 the handset was taken to OP No. 2 at Sambalpur for repairing. The OP No 2 assured to repair the said Mobile phone within twenty four hour and retained the mobile. From that date the Complainant visited the service centre various time but he has not been able to collect the Mobile from the O.P No. 2. The Complainant having no alternative on 27.01.2017 caused an advocate notice to the O.P No.2, but nothing was heard. Then he caused another advocate notice dt. 17.02.2018 to the OP No. 1. On dt. 28.03.2018 Complainant received a letter from the OP No. 1 to collect the Mobile set within 15 days from the OP No.2 and made false allegations against the Complainant. After receipt of the letter from the OP No. 1, Complainant went to the OP No. 2 to collect the Mobile set and found that the Mobile has not been repaired and the defects still subsists. The Complainant received the Mobile from the OP No. 1 with an endorsement in the job chart that, the Mobile set is received in unrepaired condition on dt. 14.04.2018. The Complainant informed all the fact to the OP No. 1 through his advocate by Regd. Post on dt. 16.04.2018 for replacement of the Mobile. But nothing has been heard thereon. As per the version of the Complainant, the Complainant expensed more than Rs. 10,000/- for running to the service stations from time to time.
2. The version of the Ops is that the Complainant visited on 11.11.2017 to service centre of Ops thrpough his representative to report the problem of “Hangs in Application/Function”, after inspection and verification of the alleged product the OP No. 2 updated the software by creating Job Sheet No 8012217104. After software update the alleged handset became alright/Reddy. The representative of the Complainant has acknowledged his remark in the Job-sheet by mentioning “Received repaired device against SO No 8012217104 to my/our satisfaction” to the functionality of the alleged handset. On 07.12.2017 the Complainant had visited the OP No. 2 to report “Display Flickering issue” in alleged handset. After inspection and verification of the alleged product the OP No. 2 resolved the problem of the Complainant by replacing the main by creating Job Sheet No 8012217104. The representative of the Complainant has acknowledged his remark in the Job-sheet by mentioning “Received repaired device against SO No 8012217104 to my/our satisfaction”On 15.12.2017 the complainant visited the OP No. 2 through his representative to report the problem of “Display flickering issue” in the alleged product. The OP No. 2 updated the software by creating Job Sheet No. 8012747797/ Dt. 15.12.2017 and after updating the product it became alright. The Job Sheet bearing No 8012747797/Dt. 15.12.2017 and the remark of the representative of the Complainant “Received repaired device against SO No 8012217104 to my/our satisfaction”.The Ops vide its letter Dt. 28.03.2018 has informed the Complainant categorically that all possible after sales service from time to time as per the terms and conditions have been made available to the Complainant and the mobile handset is performing at its best. Hence the Complainant being fully satisfied has received the mobile handset on 14.04.2018. However, with an ulterior motive the Complainant has mentioned that he received the alleged mobile handset in an unrepaired condition. Further in their version the Ops mentioned that the Hon’ble Forum does not have jurisdiction as the warranty card accompanying with the Product, clearly states that any dispute is subject to jurisdiction of the courts in Mumbai. The warranty as provided is subjected to the conditions as enumerated in the warranty conditions given to the Complainant. The Complainant cannot claim for replacement at his pleasure and the same is subject to the conditions as mentioned in the warranty of the Company.

Accordingly issues are settled.

103606587.  

1. Is the Complainant is the consumer of the Ops?
2. Whether this Forum/Commission has jurisdiction to decide the case?
3. Is there any defficiency of service in part of Ops?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

Issue No. 1 Is the Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps?

The Complainant on 30.01.2016 has purchased the Mobile Model No. LS- 5501, IMEI No. 868818020103038, IMEI No. 351886013752503, Charger No. RCKCAKB00002494 of OP No. 1 for Rs. 25,000/-. Hence he is consumer of the Ops.

Issue No. 2 Whether this Forum/Commission has jurisdiction to decide the case?

          As per the Consumer Protection Act a complaint shall be institued in a District Commission/Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:- “the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain”. The Ops has branch office at Sambalpur. Hence this Forum/Commission has jurisdiction to decide the case. Further the Complainant is also residing within the jurisdiction area of Sambalpur District.

 

Issue No. 3 Is there any deficiency of service in part of Ops?

The Mobile handset is within the guarantee period and the Ops has failed to repair or replace the mobile. So the acts of Ops constitute deficiency in service.

Issue No. 4 Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

From the facts of both the parties, the Complainant is entitled for getting reliefs what he claims in his complaint petition.

                             ORDER

It is directed to the O.Ps to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- toward cost of mobile handset with 12% interest from the date of complaint until payment, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses incurred by the Complainant for taking the phone for repairing, Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation of the losses and Rs. 5000/- toward cost of the case within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 3^rd day of August 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.