Haryana

StateCommission

A/1602/2017

JIO CENTRAL MANAGER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHA RANI - Opp.Party(s)

LALIT SOOD

08 May 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                             First Appeal No  :      1602 of 2017

Date of Institution:     27.12.2017

Date of Decision :     08.05.2018

 

 

 

1.      Jio Central Manager, LYF on the Upper Storey, HDFC Bank, Near Pehowa Chowk, Karnal Road, Karnal.

 

2.      Reliance Retail Limited, 5 TTC, Industrial Area, Thane, Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 & 3

 

Versus

 

 

1.      Asha Rani wife of Sh. Vinod Kumar, resident of House No.153/1, Ward No.6, Chatta Lachman Dass, Kaithal.

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Keshav Telecom, 865/1, Dhand Road, Kaithal.

Respondent-opposite party No.2

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member                                    

 

                                                                       

Argued by:          Shri Lalit Sood, Advocate for appellants

                             Shri Ashish Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.1-complainant.

                             None for the respondent No.2     

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

The instant appeal has been filed by Reliance Retail Limited and another-opposite parties No.1 & 3 (appellants herein) against the order dated October 10^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short, ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Asha Rani-complainant was allowed.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“6.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint against the opposite parties and direct the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide bill/receipt No.1269 dated January 24^th, 2017.  However, it is made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by complainant, is not available with the opposite parties, then the opposite parties shall refund Rs.7500/- as the cost of mobile set to the complainant.  The opposite parties are also burdened with costs of Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant.  All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order….”

 

2.      The complainant purchased mobile handset for Rs.7500/- from Keshav Telecom, Kaithal-opposite party No.2 (Authorized Dealer) on January 24^th, 2017.  After a few days, some defects were developed in the mobile handset.  She requested the opposite parties to replace the mobile handset with new one but they did not pay any heed.  Hence, she filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The opposite parties No.1 & 3 (appellants), in their, written version, pleaded that during inspection and verification of the mobile handset, it was found that the touch and printed circuit board of the product was liquid logged (damaged).  Remaining contents of the complaint were denied.

4.      It is not in dispute that the mobile handset purchased by the complainant developed defects during the warranty period. The opposite parties failed to rectify the defects. The appellants did not lead any evidence to prove that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. Thus, the impugned order does not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed.

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.4300/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 08.05.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK