Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/76

Jaskaranjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Black Berry India - Opp.Party(s)

Gagagndeep Singh

26 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

 Consumer Complaint No: 76 of 06.02.2015

                                                                      Date of Decision:26.10.2015

 

Jaskaranjit Singh son of Sh.Harbans Singh, r/o H.No.2159, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Dugri, Ludhiana.

……Complainant

                                                    Versus          

 

1.Black Berry India, having its Head Office at No.76, Udyog Vihar-I, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Director/M.D./Authorized Representative.

2.M/s Image Services, Authorized Service Centre of Black Berry, AX-17, Model Town, Main Market, Opp.Andhra Bank, Ludhiana, through its Proprietor/Partners.

3.M/s.Mobility World, SCF-12, Ishmeet Chowk, Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana, through its Prop/Partners.                                                                                                                                                      ……...Opposite Parties

        Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.        

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Sh.Gagandeep Singh, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Sh.S.K.Pathak, Advocate

For OP2 & OP3             :         Ex-parte

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Sh.Jaskaranjit Singh filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs, by alleging that he purchased one blackberry mobile phone Model Z10 bearing Sr.No.357033056955123 vide invoice of month of June, 2014 for a consideration of Rs.17,990/- from Op3. Few days after purchase, the said mobile handset went out of order and stopped working. Problem arose in the use of camera as well as of videos. The complainant approached OP3, who directed him to approach OP2, being the authorized service centre of OP1. Then the complainant approached OP2 with mobile and apprised him of the said problem of the mobile set. OP3 took the mobile handset of the complainant and checked the same. One job sheet dated 26.8.2014 was provided to the complainant. In that job sheet, OP2 admitted that said mobile phone is defective one as camera connector point is missing in the phone. Even OP2 disclosed that said mobile is sealed. OP2 assured that either mobile set will be repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant or replacement of the same with new one will take place. When complainant again visited OP2, then mobile set was not handed over to complainant on the pretext that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile set. OP assured the complainant that the defective mobile set will be replaced with new one, but thereafter, despite repeated visits made by complainant, new mobile hand set was not provided to the complainant. Numerous emails even were sent to OP1, but all in vain. Mobile set was within warranty/guarantee period. Legal notice dated 26.11.2014 was served to Ops but no reply was sent by them. Prayer made for directing Ops to change the defective mobile phone with new one and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for financial and mental harassment.

2.                          OP1 filed written statement by claiming that correct address of OP1 is M/s BlackBerry India Private Limited and Mr.Siddhartha Dasgupta is authorized representative of OP1. It is claimed that averments/allegations mentioned in the complaint are contradictory and inconsistent with each other and complaint is not maintainable. Rather it is claimed that complaint is false, vexatious and frivolous. Copies of documents mentioned in the complaint have not been supplied to OP1. The complaint alleged to be filed without any deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Concealment of material facts also pleaded in this reply but by admitting about the purchase of the mobile set by the complainant. Rather, it is claimed that complainant has been enjoying mobile hand set in question without any defect for the last two months. It is claimed that the complainant approached for the first time, service centre of Ops on 26.8.2014 for claiming about irresponsive camera. Complainant desired    that Ops should swap a handset for the complainant, but the Ops refused to oblige initially. However later on Ops arranged a swapped device for complainant, but complainant never turned back to collect the same, despite sending repeated intimations to him. Handset is still lying with the authorized service centre of Ops. That set is ready for collection, but the complainant instead of collecting the same has filed this compliant for harassing the Ops. There was no manufacturing defect in the said mobile set at all. As per warranty conditions, Ops required to provide free of costs repair services. Even as per terms and conditions of the warranty, Ops required to repair the defective portion of the blackberry device with new or reconditioned part without charging anything from the complainant. So, the complainant is not entitled to any relief beyond the agreed terms and conditions of the warranty. Complainant cannot enrich himself by claiming against the terms and conditions of the warranty. No cause of action has accrued to the complainant and as such prayer made for dismissal of complaint.

3.                In reply submitted by OP2, it is admitted that complainant approached this OP with mobile handset in question and the engineer of OP2 i.e. of Image Service found the camera connector pin missing. It was on account of that ELS failed. OP2 collected handset for sending the same to OP1. Numerous requests were made to OP1 on behalf of complainant and  thereafter, sanction for replacement of handset was obtained by OP2. Op1 is ready to give the swapped mobile handset to complainant but complainant refused to accept the same. OP2 was having agreement with HCL Services Limited, D-223, Sector 63, Noida for providing services to OP1 with effect from 31.3.2015. Op1 terminated the agreement with OP2 and now M/s Cell Tech India, 24-A, Surya Arcade Complex, National Road, Bhai Wala Chowk, Ludhiana is the authorized service centre. M/s Image Service is no longer authorized as service centre for OP1. In job sheet annexed with the complaint, it is mentioned that ELS failure was due to little bit pin missing near camera. The complainant put his signatures in acknowledgment of that job sheet. No notice was received by OP2.

4.                   Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents EX.C1 to Ex.C6 and then closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh.Siddhartha Dasgupta, Authorized Signatory of OP1 along with documents Ex.RW1/1 and Ex.RW1/2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                In fact OP2 was proceeded against ex-parte in this case on 9.9.2015 but subsequently, one Sh.Sukhbir Singh, Engineer of OP2 came with new mobile hand set/swapped mobile set for handing over the same to the complainant in this Forum on 29.9.2015. That mobile hand set brought by Sh.Sukhbir Singh was not acceptable to the complainant is a fact reflected in our order dated 30.9.2015.

7.                After closure of evidence by both the parties, arguments were heard and records gone through minutely. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties.

8.                 Counsel for complainant vehemently contends that the purchased mobile handset functioned for 1 ¼ / 1 ½ months only. If said functioning of 1 ¼ / 1 ½ months was there, then question of inherent/manufacturing defect does not arise. Copy of job sheet Ex.C6 has been produced to show that ELS failure was due to little bit pin missing near camera connector. In this job sheet Ex.C6, it is  mentioned that in case, the company due to said fault in not responsive, then   the service centre will not be responsible. Customer handset was sealed and camera point was found missing as per contents of job sheet Ex.C6. Complainant agreed with the terms and conditions of job sheet Ex.C6 dated 26.8.2014. In view this agreement between the complainant and OP2, the service centre could not be held responsible in case the company did not accept fault in question.

9.                There is no dispute regarding the fact that mobile hand set in question was purchased through invoice Ex.C1 at Ludhiana on 17.6.2014. The contents of the job sheet Ex.C6 itself shows that there was some defect in the mobile handset and i.e. why the same was accepted for repair by the service centre. Counsel for complainant contends that in view of manufacturing defect, OP1, manufacturer is responsible to replace the mobile handset in question with new one. That submission of counsel for complainant goes contrary to the contents of limit of the warranty contained in Ex.RW1/1 and Ex.RW1/2. After going through contents of Ex.RW1/1 and Ex.RW1/2, it is made out that if blackberry device is found to be defective during the warranty period, then the company has absolute and sole discretion to replace the defective portion of the device without charging anything from the customer or after repair the mobile handset with reconditioned part will be returned to the customer. In case, replacement of the defective mobile handset took place, then as per clause-ii of Ex.RW1/2 on page 2, the defective mobile handset will be replaced with a comparable new or refurbished product. So, the submission of counsel for the complainant has no force that in case of defect in the mobile handset, complainant   is entitled for new mobile handset in sealed packed. Rather, terms and conditions of the warranty itself provide that the company will hand over a comparable new or refurbished product in case of defect found during warranty period. Terms and conditions of the warranty are binding and as such, the complainant cannot claim new swapped mobile handset in a sealed packet. Rather, the complainant is entitled to the refurbished set or to the reconditioned parts only.

10.              As OP1 is ready to handover the refurbished handset in working order and as such, adamancy on the part of the complainant in not accepting the same is against the terms of contract of warranty. This adamancy on the part of the complainant denudes him from getting any compensation.

11.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint allowed in terms that complainant will be entitled to refurbished/reconditioned mobile handset only. This refurbished/reconditioned mobile handset will be handed over by OP1 or its representative to complainant within 30 days from today. No order as to compensation and litigation costs is passed. Copies of orders be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K.Dhir)

                                 Member                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:26.10.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.