BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.78/17.
Date of instt.: 17.3.2017.
Date of Decision: 10.10.2017.
Asha Rani w/o Sh. Vinod Kumar, r/o H.No.153/1, Ward No.6, Chatta Lachman Dass, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Jio Central Manager, LYF on the Upper Storey, HDFC Bank, near Pehowa Chowk, Karnal Road, Kaithal,
- Keshav Telecom, 865/1, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
- Reliance Retail Ltd, 5 TTC Industrial Area, Thane, Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Smt. Meenakshi Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Ops No.1 and 2 ex parte.
Shri Sanjeev Moudgil, Advocate for Ops No.1 & 3 (though Op No. 1 ex parte).
ORDER
(HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that she purchased a LYF Smartphone Model Water 4 bearing IME11: 868995020275337 on 24.1.2017 from Op No.2 with two years warranty. It is alleged that the said mobile phone stopped functioning and hanged due to the poor quality mobile. It is further alleged that the complainant approached Ops to replace the same with new one, but the Ops did not do so. It is further alleged that he served legal notice on 6.3.2017, but inspite of that, the Ops has not replaced the above said mobile with new. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, Op No.3 appeared before this forum, whereas, Ops No.1 and 2 did not appear and opted to proceed against ex parte vide order dt. 27.04.2017. Op No.3 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that complainant never visited Op N o.1 or any of Ops to report the problem of the mobile handset. It is further stated that on 14.2.2017, representative of OP No.2 Abhishek, visited Op No.1 to report the touch problem of the product, for which, representative of Op No.2 filled and completed customer information slip and at the time of depositing the product with Op No.1, representative of OP No.2 did not report any problem other than touch problem. It is further stated that after depositing the product with Op No.2, Op No.1 created a job sheet bearing No.8008074274 and during inspection of the product, Op No.1 found that the touch and printed circuit board (PCB) was liquid logged (damaged) and same remark was noted by Op No.1 on the job sheet and the entire touch and PCB of product is required to be replaced. It is further stated that as the product was found in liquid logged, therefore, Op No.1 informed the representative of Op No.2 that he have to bear the cost of replacement of PCB of the product and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1, Ex.C2, Mark C-1 and closed evidence on 24.07.2017. On the other hand, Op. No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A; documents Mark R-1 to
Mark R-4 and closed evidence on 18.09.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant had purchased mobile set LYF Smartphone Model Water 4 bearing IME11 No. 868995020275337 on 24.1.2017 from Op No.2 vide Bill No.1269 dated 24.1.2017 (Mark C-1). The said mobile set became defective within the warranty period having problems of stop functioning and hanging etc. and the complainant approached the Ops regarding these problems vide job-sheet dt. 14.02.2017 Mark R3. From job sheet (Mark R-3), it is clear that the mobile set was within warranty, but the Ops did not resolve the said problems in the mobile set in question. Thereafter, the complainant also issued a legal notice on 06.03.2017 through his counsel to Op No.1, but Ops did not pay any heed. These circumstances clearly indicates that the defects in the mobile set of the complainant was still in existence. The complainant has supported his versions by affidavit Ex.CW1/A, bill dt. 24.1.2017 Mark C-1 and legal notice Ex.C-1. On the other hand, Ops produced affidavit Ex.RW3/A; Limited Warranty terms and conditions as Mark R-1; Customer Information Slip Mark R-2 and job sheet dated 14.2.2017 as Mark R-3 & Mark R-4. The Ops contended that the mobile of the complainant was liquid logged at the time of checking by its engineer. But the Ops have failed to produce any report or affidavit of its engineer to prove regarding the liquid logged of mobile of the complainant. The Ops have failed to prove on the file that all the defects of the mobile set in question were removed by them and the mobile set in question has no manufacturing defect. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the mobile set in question was neither repaired properly nor replaced by the Ops despite the fact that the same was within warranty period. Hence, the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
6. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint against the Ops and direct the Ops to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide Bill/ Receipt No.1269 dated 24.01.2017. However, it is made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.7500/- as the cost of mobile set to the complainant. The Ops are also burdened with costs of Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.10.10.2017.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
Present : Smt. Meenakshi Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Ops No.1 and 2 ex parte.
Shri Sanjeev Moudgil, Advocate for Ops No.1 & 3 (though Op No. 1 ex parte).
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even date, the present complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:10.10.2017. Member Presiding Member.
