Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/321

Sukhdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jio Centre Care - Opp.Party(s)

Mandeep Chanana

22 Jan 2019

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         321 of  2017  

Date of Institution :   25.09.2017

Date of Decision :      22.01.2019

Sukhdev Singh aged about 27 years, son of Gurdev Singh r/o Village Panj Grain Kalan, Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.

.....Complainant

Versus

1. JIO Centre Care LYF (Reliance Retail Ltd) Moga Road, Opp.Gate No. 2, New Grain Market, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot through Ajit Singh Contractor, Street No. 5 Aman Nagar, Moga Road, Kotkapura.
2. Satya Telecom, Jaitu Road, Kotkapura Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot, through its Proprietor.
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 Mandeep Chanana, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

             Sh Dildeep Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-1 & 3,

              Sh Jatinder Marria, Ld Counsel for OP-2.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          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

CC No.321 of  2017

pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

   2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one mobile handset Make LYF Model Reliance Water 7 S from OP-1 for Rs.8,500/-from OP-1 against proper bill bearing no.3036 dated 15.02.2017 with one year warranty. Since the day of purchase, said mobile started giving problem as its touch was not working properly and it was very slow. Complainant approached OP-2 who sent the mobile with authorized service centre of OPs and after keeping the mobile for 2 hours, OP returned the mobile to him assuring that mobile is now working properly as software problem in said mobile has been removed by them. But defect in his mobile was not removed and despite 5-6 visits of complainant to OPs, they did not redress his grievance. Every time, OP-2 used to keep the mobile for 3-4 hours and kept returning the same with false assurance that mobile was okay, but problem in said mobile remained there and thereafter touch of the mobile handset stopped working and 4, 5 and 6 digits of its keypad did not work. Complainant again approached OP-2 through OP-3 and at the time of receipt of said mobile, OP did not raise any objection but later on said mobile was returned to complainant with lame excuse that mobile is having dent at top side and also demanded Rs.3,305/-for the repair of said mobile which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant made several requests to Ops to redress his grievance by replacing the said defective mobile phone, but all in vain as OPs are not paying any heed to listen to his genuine requests, which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has suffered great harassment and mental agony due to this

 

CC No.321 of  2017

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 3.10.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                        On receipt of notice, OP-1 and OP-3 filed reply taking preliminary objections 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 asserted that present complaint is not maintainable as it is based on mere conjectures and surmises and stressed that complainant has not produced on record any cogent evidence to prove his allegations and even this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. It is averred that OP-1 is the authorized serve centre for LYF brand mobile devices and OP-3 is not the manufacturer of said product as OP-3 imported the said product and sold and distributed the same in India through its distribution channel and averments relating to extended warranty period of said mobile are incomplete. Standard warranty on the handsfree and USB cable is extended for a period of 3 months from the date of original retail purchase. Standard extended  warranty is provided for a period of further 12 months provided the purchaser of the product actives the extended warranty as per terms and conditions given in warranty card. There is no hardware related issue in mobile in question and before taking delivery, complainant completely checked the same. There is no problem in the product and it was functioning normally. It is admitted that whenever complainant brought the mobile with them, they provided effective repairs when it was under warranty

CC No.321 of  2017

period. it is duly admitted by answering OP that they refused to carry out free of costs repairs to the warranty void product. All the other allegations are refuted with prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5                                     Notice sent to OP-2 through RC AD and acknowledgment received from OP-2, meaning thereby that OP has sufficient notice of present complaint, but despite having knowledge of complaint against them, OP-2 did not appear in the Forum on date of hearing and when no one appeared on behalf of OP-2 on date fixed then,  after several calls, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte. Later on, OP-2 appeared in the Forum through counsel and filed application seeking permission to join him in the proceedings of case and then on no objection issued by remaining parties, OP-2 was allowed to join the proceedings and then, OP-2 also filed reply, wherein it has denied all the allegations of complainant being false and incorrect and asserted that warranty  if any is to be given by the Company and not by OP-2. It is averred that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as he has already sold the said mobile phone to Maa Durga Communications, Kotkapura and is no longer owner of said mobile handset. However, on merits, OP-2 admitted before the Forum that he sold the said mobile to complainant and but warranty if any is to be given by Company i.e OP-1 and  it is to be repaired by Service Centre of OPs i.e OP-1. It is further denied that complainant ever approached answering OP regarding problem in his mobile phone  and he never kept the mobile of complainant with him or sent to OP-1, rather complainant might have approached OP-1 at his own. Complainant has concocted a false story to harass the OP-2 and refuted all the allegations of

 

CC No.321 of  2017

complainant being wrong and incorrect. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

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-1and documents Ex C-2 to C-6 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                             In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of  Vikram Sharma as Ex OP-1, 3/1 and documents Ex OP-1,3/2 to OP-1,3/18 and then, closed the same. Ld counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Parshant Sharma as Ex OP-2/1 and also closed the same on behalf of OP-2.

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 party.

9                                                    The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone worth Rs.8,500/-from OP-1 against a proper bill and made cash payment. Since the day of purchase, mobile phone in question started giving problem. Its touch was not working properly and its functioning was very slow. Complainant approached OP-2 who sent the same with authorized service centre of OPs and after keeping the mobile for 2 hours, OP returned the mobile to him assuring that mobile is now working properly as software problem in his mobile has been removed by them. But defect in his mobile was not removed and despite several visits, they did not redress his grievance. Every time, OP-2 used to keep the

CC No.321 of  2017

mobile for 3-4 hours and kept returning the same with assurance that it was okay, but problem in said mobile still persisted. After that, touch of the mobile handset also stopped working and 4, 5 and 6 digits of its keypad did not work. Complainant again approached OP-2 through OP-3 and at the time of receipt of said mobile, OP did not raise any objection but later on it was returned to complainant saying that mobile is having dent at top side and also demanded Rs.3,305/-for the repair of said mobile which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant made several requests to Ops to redress his grievance by replacing the said defective mobile phone, but OPs paid no heed to his genuine requests. He has prayed for accepting the complaint and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 6. Grievance of complainant is that since then, he has been approaching OPs with requests to replace the said phone but all in vain as OPs are not paying any heed to listen to his genuine requests, which amounts to deficiency in service. To controvert the allegations of complainant, plea taken by OP-1 is that OP-1 is the authorized serve centre for LYF brand mobile devices and OP-3 is not the manufacturer of said product as OP-3 imported the said product and sold and distributed the same in India through its distribution channel and averments relating to extended warranty period of said mobile are incomplete. There is no hardware related issue in mobile in question and it was functioning normally. It is admitted that whenever complainant brought the mobile with them, they provided effective repairs when it was under warranty period. It is duly admitted by OP-1 that they refused to carry out free of costs repairs to the warranty void product. As per OP-1 and 3, as warranty for mobile in question has expired therefore, they cannot provide free of costs repair services. OP-2 admitted that he sold the said mobile to complainant and argued that

CC No.321 of  2017

warranty if any is to be given by Company and  it is to be repaired by Service Centre/OP-1. Complainant ever approached OP -2 regarding problem in his mobile phone and he never kept the mobile with him nor sent to OP-1, rather complainant might have approached OP-1 at his own. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.

10                                       It is observed that there is no denial to the fact that complainant purchased mobile handset in question from OP-1 on 15.02.2017, which was manufactured by OP-3 and there was one year warranty for any defect in the said mobile handset. Complainant approached Ops several times to get the same repaired, but despite keeping the mobile with them for repair purpose, service centre of OPs could not provide effective repairs up to the satisfaction of complainant and thereafter, they demanded Rs.3305/-from complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service. Defects could not be removed by Ops even during the warranty period and now, they have no right to demand anything from him for making any repairs. OPs did not provide proper and sufficient services to complainant by doing effective repairs. OP-1 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. OPs has neither provided requisite services by making effective repairs nor have bothered to replace the defective mobile set, which amounts to deficiency in service.

11                                         From the above discussion, we are of considered opinion that OPs No. 1 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. OPs are directed to replace the mobile handset of

CC No.321 of  2017

complainant with new one of same model. Complainant is also directed to return the old handset to OPs at the time of receiving the new one. OP-1 and 3 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental 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. Complaint against OP-2 stands hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum

Dated: 22.01.2019

 

 

(Param Pal Kaur)            (Ajit Aggarwal)

Member                          President