STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | | 199 of 2018 |
Date of Institution | | 12.07.2018 |
Date of Decision | | 13.08.2018 |
- M/s Reliance Retail Limited, SCO No.87-88, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director and also having its registered office at 3rd floor, court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400002.
- M/s Reliance Retail Ltd., Kurkumbh Industrial Area, Pune Solapur Highway, Kurkumbh Taluke, Daund, Pune-413105, Maharashtra, through its Managing Director.
…Appellants
Versus
- Jasod Singh son of Late Sh.Mohan Singh aged about 44 years r/o H.No.272, Khuda Ali Sher, Chandigarh.
- Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Ltd., SCO No.1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
……Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against order dated 02.05.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh in C.C.No.No. 853/2017.
Argued by: Mr.Ammish Goel, Advocate for the appellants.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellants/Opposite Parties No.2&3 have filed this appeal against order dated 2.5.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), partly allowing a complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant.
2.. The Forum, in its judgment, has noted down the following facts qua grievance of the complainant as per his complaint;
“ Briefly stated, he purchased a mobile phone make LYF Water I CK LS 5502 for Rs.8090 vide invoice dated 21.01.2017 for Rs.8090/-, having one year warranty from OP No.1. The said mobile phone alleged to have become dead within two days of its purchase and as such he approached OP No.1 who made the mobile phone functional after some adjustment. However, in August, 2017, the mobile phone started giving problems i.e. screen blank/no display. It has further been averred that OP No.2 repaired the mobile phone without opening the job sheet. However, the mobile phone again started giving the same problem and as such he approached OP No.2 on 25.09.2017 who retained the same and asked him to collect the same after two days. According to the complainant, he visited OP No.2 number of times but OP No.2 failed to repair the mobile phone on the ground that the parts are not available. The complainant again visited OP NO.2 on 28.10.2017 for collection of the mobile phone but it started saying that the complainant has to pay Rs.7300/- for repairs despite the fact that the mobile phone was under warranty. According to the complainant, the mobile phone is still lying with OP No.2. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.”
3. Upon notice, OP NO.1/respondent No.2 failed to put in appearance before the Forum and vide order dated 11.12.2017 it was proceeded against ex parte.
4. A joint reply was filed by OP Nos.2 & 3/appellants. The facts were not put in dispute. It was admitted that the complainant approached the appellants on 25.9.2017 complaining some defect in the LCD of the mobile phone set. Against receipt, the said mobile set was retained for inspection and verification. The device was disassembled and it was found that PCBA component near charging section was burnt. Representative of OP No.2 asked the complainant to show adapter and data cable used for charging the product, however, he failed to do so. After about 5 days, the complainant again visited their premises on 30.9.2017 to take back the mobile set. However, service engineer of OP No.2/appellant No.1 again asked him to show the adapter and data cable used for charging the device. When he failed to do so, it was brought to his notice that as per terms & conditions of warranty, damage caused to the product was not covered. Repair estimate of Rs.7300/- was given. Other allegations levelled were denied.
5. To the reply, rejoinder was filed by the complainant controverting the pleas taken by the OPs/appellants and reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
6. Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, when partly allowing the complaint of respondent No.1/complainant, observed as under ;
“ The main defence of the OPs No.2 and 3 is that the Service Engineer asked the complainant to show the adapter and data cable used for charging the product for further verification however, he failed to provide the same and as such OP No.2 informed him that the damage to the product is not covered under the warranty. However, we do not find any substance in the same in the absence of any documentary evidence to this effect. Otherwise also, the PCBA of the mobile phone was burnt within the warranty period and as such it was the responsibility of OPs No.2 and 3 to carry out the necessary repairs within the warranty period free of cost to make it functional. Moreover, there was no reason for the complainant to use non-LYF products as alleged in the written statement especially when he purchased the new mobile phone along with its accessories. Besides this, the complainant has specifically deposed in replication that no accessories as alleged in the written reply were ever demanded by OPs No.2 and 3. Moreover, if the plea of Nos.2 & 3 for a moment is accepted then it is not understood that as to why the affidavit of the engineer/technician of the service center who inspected the mobile phone in question and made such a report has been adduced. Therefore, we have no hesitation to conclude that such a false and frivolous plea has been taken by OPs No.2 & 3 just to defeat the genuine claim of the complainant by any means and to evade its liabilities towards him. It is a common practice, as of now days, of the Mobile Companies to deny service, within warranty period, to a common man/consumer by mentioning the physical damage/dent/scratches/usage of non-company products so that it could be easily ousted from warranty terms and they would earn by carrying out repairs on payment basis even within the warranty period.”
7. Further plea of the appellants that the defective mobile phone was returned to the complainant was also rejected bythe Forum by stating that the appellants have failed to place on record any receipt issued by the complainant to admit the above fact. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the damage to the product was caused on account of use of unauthorized adapter and data cable used to charge the device. This plea was rejected stating that there was no reason for the complainant to use unauthorized cable etc. for charging purpose and furthermore once it is proved on record that the cable and adapter was supplied when the mobile set was purchased, it was rightly said that the complainant will not go for any other unauthorized product to charge the device. At the time of arguments, we specifically asked Counsel for the appellants to show any proof that before rejecting claim of the complainant, at any point of time, he was asked to produce the data cable and the adapter he used to charge the device. It was only said that oral direction was given. In this world of technology, the complainant could have been intimated through email or otherwise to show the above said adapter etc. The claim of the complainant was rejected by saying that he had used unauthorized cable etc. to charge the device without confronting him with the above said fact. We are of the opinion that the view rendered by the Forum is perfectly justified. No case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
9. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
10. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
