Delhi

North East

CC/449/2014

Surabhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

L.G. Electronics India Pvt. ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 449/14

 

CORAM:        Hon’ble President Sh. N.A. Zaidi

                        Hon’ble Member Sh. N.A. Alvi

                       

In the matter of:

Surabhi D/o Dr. K.L. Batra,

R/o 218, Sector-15, Part-1,

Gurgaon.     

                                                                                                                             Complainant                                       

           

Versus

1. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.

Regd. Office: A-27 Mohan Co- Operative industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,

New Delhi-110044.

 

Also At:-

 

LG Electronic India Pvt. Ltd

D-3, P3B, 3^rd Floor,

Religare Building, District Centre,

Saket, New Delhi-110017.

                                                                                                         Opposite Party

 

 

Order

 

 

                                                                                      DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12-11-2014

                                                                                      DATE OF DECISION      : 07-04-2015

 

 

N.A. Zaidi, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

 

Present complaint has been filed alleging that the complainant is a consumer of OP. He purchased a mobile of OP make, model LG- 612, on           10-3-2013. The said mobile started problem of call drop, non charging and hanging. Complaint whereof was given by the complainant to LG service centre at Gurgaon who after checking and inspection of mobile returned the same saying it was application and memory limitation and advised the complainant to upgrade the memory. Despite it same problem continued. Complainant visited service centre multiple times but no solution was provided. Ultimately the complainant approached LG service centre at New Delhi and deposited the mobile for repairs on 1-11-2014 vide job card No. RNA141101041813 to get it back, after repairs, on 5-11-2014. Complainant got back the mobile on that date allegedly after getting the software upgraded. But even thereafter the set is behaving erratically and the complainant is facing problems. Alleging unfair trade practice for providing sub standard and inferior quality product and deficiency in services, on the part of OP, the complainant has prayed for grant of refund of the cost of the mobile being Rs. 10,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- litigation cost.

OP has taken the defence that complainant is not its consumer. The mobile handset is out of warranty. The complainant has suffered no loss. Hence, the complaint, being without any locus standi of the complainant, barred by time and there being no cause of action against the OP, is not maintainable as per Consumer Protection Act and is liable to be dismissed. Besides, the OP has also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this forum to entertain the present complaint. As per OP first complaint to its service centre was filed by the complainant only on 1-11-2014 on which date warranty of one year, on the mobile handset, had already expired. It has been stated that as per job sheet dated 1-11-2014 there was charging problem, call drop problem but it was found that charger was faulty hence software was updated, by deleting existing huge data in handset.

Complainant opted not to file its rejoinder and filed her affidavit by way of evidence alongwith relevant documents. OP also filed its evidence by way of affidavit and the copy of the job sheet.

Heard and perused the record.

Admittedly, the mobile was purchased and there was defect in it. The points in dispute are as to whether the complainant is a consumer of OP or not if so, whether the complaint of defect was made to the OP or it service centre within warranty period or not. If not as to whether reliefs sought in the complaint can be granted against the OP.  

As per invoice dated 10-3-2013 exhibit CW1/1 name of the purchaser is blank while the same is shown as purchased from Surya Communication for Rs. 10,000/-. However, job sheet dated 1-11-2014 exhibit CW1/2 show one Shri Sudhir Mahajan as customer as well as the depositor of the mobile in service centre. Exhibit CW1/2 also show that the mobile set was out of warranty on that date and no objection on behalf of the said Shri Sudhir Mahajan against it is seen on record. There is no document to show warranty clause. Complainant has also not filed any warranty card relating to this mobile. Defects in the mobile as alleged in the complaint are also the same as per the job sheet. Retail invoice dated 5-11-2014 exhibit CW1/3 show that the mobile set was deposited in the category of repair and maintenance service and complainant has paid, to the authorised service centre namely Elcom Trading Co. P.L.CDMA, for the service rendered, a sum of Rs. 169/- including service tax. In the complaint complainant has not made the service centre/ repairer a party- respondent and also not sought any relief against it but against the OP only being manufacturer of the mobile. Neither dealer from whom the mobile was purchased has been made a party-respondent in this complaint. Regarding locus standi of the complainant, complaint narrates no averment to show how she has become consumer of OP’s mobile, purchased in the name of Shri Sudhir Mahajan. Besides complainant though claimed to lodge complaints prior to 1-11-2014 but there is no document, in its support, placed on record by the complainant. The OP though admitted the complaints in the mobile but denied its liability, mobile being out of warranty. Regarding objection of the OP with respect to territorial jurisdiction of this forum as per various judgements passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in Holy Family Hospital Vs. Amit Kumar, Sardar Swaran Jeet Singh Vs. Anil Kumar Dixit and Mahesh Ramnath Vs. The Secretary Cum- Commissioner & others, Delhi being one District this forum has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.  

Thus, we are of the opinion that even if the complainant is treated as user of the mobile with the permission of the purchaser, the OP either itself or as principal of its authorised service centre was liable for any defect, manufacturing or otherwise, in the mobile, only if the defect would have taken place within warranty period of one year which the complainant has failed to prove and apparently mobile was in use, without any defect, for more than one and half years. Alternate relief if any might be against the service centre only for paid service but the complainant has neither made it a party respondent nor sought any relief against it.

Accordingly, complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.

Parties to bear their own costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 07/04/2015 ) 

           

           

             (N.A. Zaidi)                                                                             (Nishat Ahmad Alvi) 

               President                                                                                         Member