Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/117/2015

Miss Esha Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Blackberry Customer Care - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

14 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	117 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	05.03.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	14.10.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Miss Esha Kumar D/o Sh.Bijay Kumar, H.No.39-P, MDC 4, Panchkula.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  M/s Redington (India) Limited, Redington Reverse Logistics Center, REdington India Limited, Old No.11, New No.27, NRS Buldg. Velacherry Rd, Saidapet, Chennai -15 through its authorised signatory

 

2]  Jumbo Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Elante Mall, Shop No.240, Second Floor, 178-178A, Chandigarh IND & Business Park, PH-1, Chandigarh 160002, through its Proprietor/authorised signatory.

 

3]  Blackberry India Private Limited, Ground Floor 8-12, World Trade Centre, Babbar Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 through its authorised signatory.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Complainant in person.

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Aseem Gupta, Adv. for OP -1

Sh.H.S.Gill, Adv. for OP -2

Sh.Amit Arora, Adv. for OP-3.

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant purchased Blackberry mobile handset on 21.6.2014 for Rs.18,000/- from Opposite Party No.2.  It is stated that since the day of purchase, the complainant is facing problem in the said mobile handset with regard to Network Loss, Battery getting dead and phone getting off even though battery is showing charge; phone hangs and call logs, and contact get disappear, phone heats up while using internet, percentage of battery mismatch with device monitor; proximity sensor not working, network vanishes while calling, network showing full range and phone show “A temporary network error has occurred” and also show that “you can only make emergency call insert your SIM or contact service provider”.  It is also stated that on account of above mentioned problems, the handset in question was deposited with Blackberry Service Center twice against job sheet, but even after the servicing, the complainant is still facing the same problems.  Hence, this complaint. 

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 (M.s Redington India Limited) has filed the reply stating therein that answering Opposite Party has wrongly been made party to the present complaint and that M/s. Blackberry Singapore Pte. Limited, manufacturer of Blackberry handset and answering Opposite Party No.1, are two different independent legal entities and have engaged in distinctive business.  It is stated that answering Opposite Party has not soled the handset in question to the complainant.  It is also stated that answering Opposite Party is neither involved into the provisions of sale of handsets nor renders after sale service to the handset, hence answering Opposite Party is unable to comment about the various other averments and allegations stated in the complaint with respect to the services availed by her from the other OPs.  That there is no privity of contract between the answering Opposite Party and the complainant. Pleading no deficiency in service, it is prayed that the compliant qua Opposite Party No.1 be dismissed.

         The Opposite Party No.2 (Jumbo Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd.) has also filed reply and admitted the sale of Blackberry mobile handset in question to the complainant on 21.6.2014.  It is stated that the OPs NO.1 & 3 are the manufacturer of the said product and any defect in its working condition is the liability of the manufacturer and not the seller.  It is further stated that the Opposite Party No.2 being only a Dealer and not a manufacturer of the Product, so any liability regarding its quality, servicing or replacement is on the manufacturer and not the dealer.  It is also stated that the complainant is bound by the terms & conditions of the Exchange Policy, and thus such product will not be exchanged by Opposite Party No.2 and it does not have any liability with regard to its replacement. Denying rest of the allegation, it is prayed that the complaint qua Opposite Party NO.2 be dismissed with costs.

         The Opposite Party No.3 (Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd.) in its reply admitted the sale of the mobile in question to the complainant on 21.6.2014.  It is stated that the complainant brought the said handset after enjoying it for 5 months, with some minor issue, which was duly rectified and then handed over to the complainant in perfect working condition.  Thereafter, the handset was lastly brought to the authorised service centre of answering Opposite Party on 1.11.2014 claiming the issues of auto shut down, network drop etc., which rectified by replacing the faulty spare parts and the handset was returned back to the complainant within the reasonable time, after carrying out the necessary service. It is asserted that thereafter, the complainant never raised any concern whatsoever with respect to the subject handset and the same is still being enjoyed by the complainant without any sort of defect.  It is submitted that had there been any inherent defect in the subject handset, than the same would not have been enjoyed by the complainant for a considerable period of time.  It is asserted that as a matter of fact even before filing the present complaint, the answering Opposite Party as a goodwill gesture, had offered to provide the complainant with a higher value mobile handset i.e. Z30 without claiming any differential amount, but complainant chose not to accede the offer.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.   

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint on the ground that she had purchased one Blackberry Z10 mobile handset by paying an amount of Rs.18,000/- to Opposite Party No.2 on 21.6.2014. The complainant came across some difficulty while using the handset in question and visited the authorised service centre i.e. Opposite Party No.3 for its rectification on few different occasions i.e. on 24.10.2014 and 01.11.2014.  On both these occasions, the handset was returned after removal of defects.  However, the complainant again raised the matter with the Opposite Party about the difficulty faced by her on as many as nine different issues, as quoted in Para No.3 of her complaint at some point of time or other.  The Opposite Parties were also contacted through e-mail but all repeated efforts yielded no result, compelling her to file present complaint seeking the relief quoted by her in her prayer clause. 

 

6]       The Opposite Parties have contested the claim of the complainant by filing their respective replies and having claimed no deficiency in service on their part, have sought the dismissal of the complaint qua them. 

 

7]       We have perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the view that the mobile handset in question purchased by the complainant in the month of June, 2014 suffered malfunction and was taken to the authorised service centre of the manufacturer in the month of Oct., 2014.  The complainant was charged Rs.393/- even though the handset was under warranty.  The same handset again developed snag within 7 days of its previous repair and again an amount of Rs.393/- was charged from the complainant, even though the handset was within warranty period and also the defects were not removed, as is evident from the numerous mails shared between the complainant and the Opposite Parties. 

 

8]       The complainant claims that she has suffered due to the non-functional mobile handset and even her efforts to get the defects rectified have yielded no result, therefore, she has prayed for the refund of the invoice price of the handset along with interest as well as compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

9]       The Opposite Party No.1 (Redington India Ltd.), which is an authorize service centre of Opposite Party NO.3, manufacturer of the mobile in question, while repairing the handset of the complainant has not mentioned as to what remedial measures were taken while making the mobile handset in question functional.  Though, while filing its reply, the Opposite Party NO.3 has claimed that all necessary repairs were done as well as the required spare parts too were replaced, but no details of such repair or spares is evident from the Job Card placed on record by the complainant.  Even no explanation has been elaborated upon about the charging of Rs.393/- on two different occasions even though the handset in question was within warranty period.  The Opposite Party NO.3 (Blackberry) while filing its version has claimed that in order to resolve the matter with the complainant, she was offered a higher version of the mobile handset in question, but she declined the offer.

 

10]     We have gone through the different e-mails shared between the parties but there is no mention of the offer of a mobile handset of higher version from where we could believe that Opposite Party No.3 was eager to resolve the matter with the complainant.  Even if the Opposite Party No.3 had made some offer over the phone, the same should have been made in writing for us to believe that there were genuine efforts on its part to resolve the dispute with the complainant. 

 

11]      As per the complainant, the mobile handset in question still remains defective and the Opposite Parties have not come forward to help her out of her problem, therefore, the complainant cannot be left at the mercy of the Opposite Parties to leave the matter unresolved, as there is no offer from the Opposite Parties to rectify the handset in question to her satisfaction.  As Blackberry India, manufacturer, of the handset in question has offered to replace the handset of the complainant with the higher version, we therefore, while taking a lenient view of all the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties.

 

12]      In this views of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that Opposite Party No.1 failed to rectify the defect of the mobile handset in question and the complainant cannot be made to suffer indefinitely on account of faulty handset, which the Opposite Parties could not repair, even though when the same was within warranty period.  Such an act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. 

 

13]      In view of the above observations, we allow the present complaint against the OPs jointly & severally and direct them as under:-

 

 [a] To refund the invoice price of the handset in question i.e. Rs.18,000/- to the complainant in exchange of the old mobile handset along with its accessories;

 

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 jointly & severally; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above, from the date of filing of this complaint till it is paid.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

14^th October, 2015                                                                

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.117 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 14th day of October, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against the Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member