PRESENT
Complainant by Representative Adv.Shri.Shri. Nitin Chhazed
present.
Opponent No.1 by Adv.Shri.Nishant Rana present.
Opponent No. 2 by Representative Shri.Sanket Dalvi present.
ORDER
(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President.)
1. The complainant purchased BLACKBERRY handset with accessories on 19/03/2011 from M/s.Linksys Communication, who is dealer of company and opponent no.3. The hand set create problem due to which complainant alleged that he lost entire data.
2. The complainant stated that handset was taken to M/s.Redingnation(India) Ltd. authorized service station during warranty period for check and the handset is with opponent no.2 since 15th June 2011, where lot of Hardware replacements were made apart from software loading. He requested for replacement due to defects but no cognizance was taken by opponent.
3. The complainant stated that handset manufactured by opponent no.1 was defective right from the beginning of purchase as problems started within 10 days of purchase. He requested for replacement of handset but no response from opponent no.1 and 2 except request to collect repaired handset without accessories attached to it.
4. The complainant prayed for refund of the price, mental harassment, loss of business and legal charges total to the amount of Rs.99,699/-.
5. The complaint was admitted on 09/08/2011 against all three opponents.
6. The opponent no.1 filed written statement and resisted the allegations on all counts including jurisdiction. The complainant is trying to extract money as he had raised frivolous issue with regard to earlier blackberry purchased on 26/02/2011.
7. The opponent no.1 stated that, after purchase of the present handset on 19/03/2011, on 15/06/2011 complainant approached opponent no.2 regarding functioning of problem. The same was repaired after analysis and investigation, and opponent no.2 intimated complainant for collecting the same on 23/06/2011. The letter was issued to complainant on 01/7/2011 and 10/08/2011. It is alleged that complainant for some vested interest did not collect despite repeated reminders.
8. The opponent no.2 filed written statement and denied all allegations. It is alleged that complainant approached service centre on 15/06/2011 regarding problem in opening applications, so the handset was forwarded to HLRC and accordingly LCD slider was replaced by HLRC.
9. The opponent no.2 stated that service centre delivered a handset of same model as standby to complainant at the time of depositing the complainant’s original handset; the complainant did not come up forward to collect repaired handset despite several follow ups. The opponent no.2 has not collected any amount towards the repairs.
10. The opponent no.3 dealer denied each and every allegation contained in complaint. The blackberry was sold in good order and conditions. The complainant has taken baseless grounds as well as averred patently false statements and he is liable to be prosecuted for perjury.
11. We have perused all the documents on record. Admittedly, Blackberry mobile was purchased from opponent no.3 who is authorized dealer, on 19/03/2011. The same was given for repair on15/06/2011 during warranty period. The opponent no.2 has taken decision, after preliminary examination to refer the same to HLRC. The documents show that, the handset was repaired and LCD slider was replaced. This clearly shows that complainant experienced some problems in the handset during warranty.
12. We have perused the terms of limited warranty. We are of the view that opponent no.2 performed obligations as per agreement. There is no evidence to show that, opponent no.1 as a bailee failed to take care of handset. The facts indicate that, opponent immediately took steps as per warranty norms and referred the handset for proper steps within responsible time and repeatedly intimated complainant to collect the handset. The opponent no.2 has also given a handed of same model as a standby to complainant.
13. The evidence shows that opponent no.1 is authorized repair centre and it found minor defects and LCD was replaced within reasonable time. As per Sec.14 of C.P.A. the opponent has initially to either repair or replace the goods. As the handset was in repairable condition, the same was repaired.
14. There was no evidence of deficiency in service on the part of opponent no.3 who is dealer. The complainant is not entitled to claim any replacement of handset. He was under an obligation to return a handset which was given by opponent no.2 as standby on 15/06/2011.
15. In the result, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. RBT complaint No.361/2011 is partly allowed.
2. The opponent no.2 is directed to return the repaired Black berry handset
after accepting the hand- set from complainant which was given to him on
15/06/2011.
3. No order as to cost.
4. Copy of this order be sent to both parties.
