Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/365

Saurabh Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Friends Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Kumar Gupta

29 Apr 2019

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         365 of 2017   

Date of Institution :     10.11.2017

Date of Decision :        29.04.2019

Saurabh Goyal aged about 23 years, s/o Pardeep Goyal, r/o Uchi Gali, Mohalla Baba Farid Ji,  Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                                    

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Friends Communication, K-2 Market, SCO No. 2, Near Airtel Showroom, Faridkot through its Proprietor.
2. Jio Centre LYF (Reliance Retail Ltd), Giani Zail Singh Market, Sadiq Road, Faridkot.
3. Imported & Reliance Retail Ltd, Shed No. 77/80 India Corporation Godown, Mankoli, through its Manager/Incharge.

..........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Naresh Kumar Gupta, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Satish Vij, Proprietor/OP-1 in person,

               Sh Dildeep Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-2 and OP-3.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                       

cc no.-365 of 2017

                                               Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to replace the defective mobile with new one and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.5,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

   2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one mobile handset LYF Wind-7, 911510850187523 on 15.11.2016 for Rs.7,000/-from OP-1 against proper bill with one year warranty. At the time of purchasing the said mobile phone, OP-1 assured complainant that it was of good quality and in case of any defect within warranty period, defect would be removed without any  delay and without any cost and it could not be removed, then defective mobile phone would be replaced with new one. It is contended that during the warranty period in July, 2017, some defect occurred in said mobile and it stopped working. Complainant immediately reported the matter to OP-1, who sent him to OP-2 service centre of OPs. OP-2 partly removed the defect and could not repair it properly. After 15 days, said phone again started giving trouble to complainant as its functioning was not proper and it stopped working. Complainant approached OP-1 and he sent the complainant to OP-2. OP-2again tried to remove the defect, but failed to correct it properly. Same problem again persisted in said phone. Complainant approached OP-1 and reported entire matter to him, but OP-1sent him to OP-2, who did not remove the defect from the phone. On 6.09.2017, complainant approached OPs and requested them to remove the defect, but instead of listening his genuine request, OPs misbehaved with complainant and refused to remove the defect from his mobile. Despite repeated requests, OPs did not do anything needful. Even legal notice issued by complainant to OPs served no

cc no.-365 of 2017

purpose. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has suffered great harassment and mental agony due to this act of OPs and has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief.

3                                                   Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 14.11.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                          On receipt of notice, OP-2 and 3 filed reply  wherein averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and therefore, complaint in hand is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that allegations levelled by complainant are false and frivolous. As per OP-2 and 3, complainant never approached them prior to 6.09.2017. he approached them on 6.09.2017 after ten months of purchase of said phone with problem of auto off for which he filled and completed Customer Information Slip made available by OP-2 and after completing and signing the same, complainant deposited the same alongwith mobile phone to OP-2. Thereafter, jobsheet ws created and after carefully checking the said phone, it was found that there was no hardware related issue in said mobile phone. It is further submitted that DRS of OP-2 updated the software of product to resolve the functional issue and after updating the same, it was demonstrated to complainant that his mobile phone was functioning normally. Complainant duly checked his phone while taking delivery of same. It was handed over to complainant on 16.09.2017 and thereafter,

cc no.-365 of 2017

complainant did not approach them regarding any defect in his phone. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

 5                                                                 On receipt of notice issued by this Forum, OP-1 appeared in the Forum in person, but despite availing several opportunities did not file written statement and therefore, vide order dated 9.01.2019, defence of OP-1 was struck off.

6                                            Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                There is no rebuttal from OP-1. However, in order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vikram Sharma Ex OP-2, 3/1 and documents Ex OP-2, 3/2 to Ex OP-2,3/3 and then closed the same on behalf of OP-2 and OP-3.

8                                                                 We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite parties.

9                                                    The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone worth Rs.7,000/-from OP-1 against a proper bill and made cash payment. During the warranty period, some defects occurred in said mobile and it stopped working. On reporting the matter to OP-1, OP-1 advised complainant to go

cc no.-365 of 2017

to Op-2 i.e service centre of OPs. OP-2 tried to correct the phone but could not remove the defect from phone completely. Complainant faced great difficulty as mobile set was not working properly and it was giving trouble to him. every time when complainant reported the matter to OP-1, he kept sending him to OP-2, who was unable to remove the defect properly. Same defect of non functioning of mobile phone persisted again and again. Complainant made several requests to OPs to remove the defect, but all in vain and they misbehaved with him and even refused to provide services. Legal notice served by complainant to OPs also served no purpose. In reply,  OP-2 and OP-3 stressed mainly on the point that complainant never approached them prior to 6.09.2017 and when he approached them with problem of auto off, they thoroughly checked the mobile hand set and found that there was no hard ware related problem in his mobile phone and defect was properly removed. Software of phone was also updated by OP-2 and its functioning was demonstrated to complainant. complainant took delivery of his phone after duly checking the same and after being fully satisfied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and OP-3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. To prove his pleadings, complainant has placed on record copy of bill dated 15.11.2016, that shows that complainant purchased the said mobile phone from Op-1 on 15.11.2016 against payment of Rs.7,000/-. Ex C-3 copy of legal notice issued by complainant through his counsel also reveals the grievance of complainant. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his contentions. Documents placed on record by complainant are authentic and are beyond any doubt.

10                                       It is observed that there is no denial to the fact that complainant purchased mobile handset in question from OP-1 on 15.11.2016,

cc no.-365 of 2017

which was manufactured by OP-3 and there was one year warranty for any defect in the said mobile handset. OP-2 authorized service care centre of OP-3 did not provide proper and sufficient services to complainant by doing effective repairs. OP-2 being authorized service care centre on behalf of OP-3 and Op-3 who is the manufacturer of said mobile phones did not bother to redress the grievance of complainant and therefore, in these circumstances, only shopkeeper has no liability for providing relief to complainant as redressal sought is to be provided by OP-2 and 3. It is also brought to our attention that OP-2 has not provided requisite services by making effective repairs and even refused to make repairs to said mobile phone.

11                                         From the above discussion, we are of considered opinion that OP-2 and 3 are liable for deficiency in service and have cause huge harassment and mental agony to complainant. Hence, present complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-2 and 3. OP-1 is only a retailer and is not the maker of mobile phone in question and warranty, if any, is to be given by manufacturing company through their authorized Service Centres. So, OP-1 is not liable for any defect or for any claim sought by complainant. Therefore, complainant against OP-1 hereby stands dismissed. Moreover, mobile in question was brought to OP-2 by complainant for removing the defect from same, but OP-2 did not provide effective services and failed to remove the defect from mobile phone in question. Had OP-2, the authorized service centre of OP-3, provide effective and efficient services in removing the defect from said mobile phone, nature of complaint would have been different. Both OP-2 and 3 are directed to replace the mobile handset of complainant with new one of same model. OP-2 and 3 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental

cc no.-365 of 2017

agony suffered by him. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum

Dated: 29.04.2019

 

 

 (Param Pal Kaur)                              (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                         Member                                  President