Delhi

North East

CC/9/2019

Arvind Dixit - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jio Mobile Shop - Opp.Party(s)

19 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

                                                   Complaint Case No. 09/19

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Arvind Dixit S/o Sh. Satyapal Sharma R/o 158/2 Jammu Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.   2.	Jio Mobile Shop 135-A, GF, Rajput Mohalla Brahampuri, Delhi-110053   Jio Service Centre A-1/1 Nathu Colony Chowk Ground Floor Bajaj Eye Hospital 100 Ft. Road, Durgapuri Delhi-110093	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

15.01.19 16.11.22 19.04.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant is that on 09.02.17 he purchased a Lyf smart phone for a sum of Rs.  4,199/- having IMEI No. 911542053795484 and 911542057795980 from Reliance Retail Ltd. Reliance DX Mini.  The Complainant stated that on 15.02.17 the mobile phone in question suddenly got hanged and started to heat up and when Complainant visited the showroom, the officials at showroom advised him to reboot the mobile phone in question. The Complainant stated that this issue of hanging of mobile phone in question created problems after every 2-3 days so Complainant visited showroom where he was advised to visit service centre. On 22.02.17 the Complainant visited the service centre vide reference no. 800883962 for resolving the hanging issues, battery backup and heating issues. The Complainant stated that the mobile phone in question started to show again the hanging issue and also the battery problems thereafter the Complainant again visited the service centre on 17.03.17 vide reference no. 8008456875 for resolving the issues in the said mobile phone. The Complainant stated that he visited service centre various times but the issues in said mobile phone was not resolved. So on 29.07.17 officials of service centre changed the battery of the said mobile. After the replacement of battery also, the problem in battery back up still existed and the issue was not resolved and after complaining service centre officials reseted the said mobile phone and after some days the mobile started to show hanging problems again. The Complainant had sent 2 emails to company due to which on 20.04.18 the service centre officials changed the mother board and assured the Complainant that the problem in mobile phone in question was resolved. The Complainant stated that after changing the mother board mobile phone started to show more hanging problems. The Complainant had visited the service centre on many dates to resolve the issue in the said mobile but the various issues in the mobile phone in question were not resolved. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for the cost of the mobile phone i.e. Rs. 4,199/- and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. He further prayed for Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2.  The Opposite Party No.1 did not file any written statement.  

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

3. Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by Opposite Party No.2 that it has provided all services as desired by the Complainant and there was no defect in the mobile hand set. But the Complainant kept of complaining without any justified reasons. The service centre has did not find any manufacturing defect in the said hand set. The service centre of the Opposite Party has tried its best to provide satisfactory services but the Complainant has deliberately complaining the problem in the hand set.
4. Further, the service centre in order to provide its best services on 18.04.17 replaced the data cable and got the software updated. The Complainant has been using third party application app which are dangerous for the using of hand set. The Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint as there is no deficiency of service on its part.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.2 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

7. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of Ms. Shruti Chandra, AR for Opposite Party No.2, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by Opposite Party No.2. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased the mobile phone in question which was manufactured by Opposite Party No.1. It is his case that the said mobile phone was not working properly and he had visited the service centre i.e. Opposite Party No.2. Despite his several visits the problem of hanging up of the mobile phone and the heating up of the mobile phone could not be rectified. The case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that mobile phone was repaired and there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. The manufacturer of the mobile phone i.e. Opposite Party No.1 did not appear in the Commission and thus it has no defence. The Opposite Party No.2 did not produce anything on record to show that after inspection / repairing the mobile phone in question was working satisfactorily or that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. There it cannot be accepted that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. From the evidence led by the Complainant, it is proved that there was deficiency of service as the mobile phone could not be rectified. Therefore, the Complainant’s complaint is allowed and Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Jio Mobile Shop is directed to pay Rs. 4,199/- (the cost of the mobile phone) to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Compensation of Rs. 8,000/- on account of harassment and litigation expenses shall also be paid by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.  
9. Order announced on 19.04.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President