DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB

Consumer Complaint No  :     77 of 2017  Date Date of Institution               :     07.11.2017

                               Date of Decision                      :     18.02.2019

Rajeev Kumar aged about 48 years son of Ravinder Kumar Resident of H. No. 49, Ward No.5, Near Durga Shiv Mandir, Kurali, District SAS Nagar Mohali.

                                                                                       …Complainant

Versus

1. LYF reliance retail Limited, 3^rd Floor, B Wing, Fortune Building, Bharat Nagar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – Maharashtra.
2. Home Shop 18, 7^th Floor, FC 24, Sector-16-A, Filmcity Noida, 201301, Utar Pardesh India.
3. LYF and Reliance JIO Service Center, Opposite Grain Market Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

                           …Opposite Parties

         Complaint under Section 12 to 14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986

         QUORUM:

         SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

         SH.INDERJIT, MEMBER

         CAPT.YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

        ARGUED BY:     

        Sh.R.P.S. Cheema, Adv. counsel for complainant.

        Sh.J.S. Ranwa, Adv. counsel for OP No.1&3

        Sh.R.S. Grewal, Adv. counsel for OP-2.

        ORDER

        KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. .   Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 to 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has given order (vide its order ID No.1007268159, dated 28.12.2016 for a new mobile/cell phone (LYF Wind-7 – True 4G Anroid P EMEI1/IEMI No.911510508421332/91151050942331) manufactured by OP-1 to OP-2 through internet apps after watching advertisement at Fatehgarh Sahib on internet through his mobile No.96468-68445.  On 31.12.2016, authorized agent of OP-2 delivered the aforesaid cell mobile with bill/order invoice No.SMMDRH/DRH/12/2016/182138 to him after collecting amount of Rs.5699/-. Warranty period of mobile in question was of one year from date of purchase.  After few days, the said mobile hand set started creating many problem i.e. heating, charging, problem, display broken automatically etc. Complainant approached OP-3 and disclosed problem of cell phone. Concerned dealing hand of OP-3 took the said defective phone and demanded Rs.1700/- from complainant.  OP assured to collect the repaired hand set after one week.  OP issued a job sheet No.8011861074 dated 23.10.2017 to complainant.  After one week, complainant visited OP-3 to collect said phone, but dealing hand of OP-3 started putting off the matter on the one pretext to another.  Ultimately, he refused to repair the mobile and further refused to refund the amount of defective mobile set.  Complainant requested OP-3 many times to repair the mobile set or refund the amount of mobile but Ops did not admit his genuine requests.  Lastly, it is prayed that complaint of complainant be accepted and Ops be directed to change the aforesaid mobile with new one or to refund the purchasing costs of mobile with interest @ 18% and also be directed to pay Rs.35,000/- for mental agony and harassment and also to pay litigation expenses
2.  Upon notice, OP No.1&3 appeared through counsel and has filed written version taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable.Complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands.Complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct. Complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious.This Forum has got no jurisdiction.Complaint is an abuse and misuse of process of law.On merits, it is submitted that OPs did not extend any guarantee on the product.Standard warranty on the hands free and USB cable is extended for a period of 3 months from date of original retail purchase, standard warranty on the charger and battery of produce is extended for a period of 6 months from the date of original retail purchase, Standard warranty on the product is extended for a period of 12 months as per terms and conditions as contained in the warranty card accompanying with product.On 23.10.2017, complainant visited OP-3 for very first time to report the problem of Over heating and display key not working, hanging, display key/ button, charging/call quality, back side camera damage for which complainant filled and completed customer information slip made available by OP-3.After signing the customer information slip, complainant deposited the product with OP-3.After inspection and verification of the product, OP-3 noticed that the Touch of the product is damaged. OP-3 also noted remark of “Display Broken” on the job sheet No.8011861074 which was signed and acknowledged by complainant.Complainant intentionally noted the remarks on job sheet that he’s not satisfied with service of OP-3. OP-3 informed the complainant that the damage to product is not covered in warranty as per clause 5 of warranty T&C. OP-3 gave repair estimate, but complainant refused the estimate and refused to pay any charges and insisted for free of cost repair. OP-3 explained that repair/replacement, if any, of the product is subject to warranty terms and conditions.As OP-3 refused to carry free of cost repair or replacement of warranty void product, the product was returned to the customer.Other each and every averment of the complaint is empathically denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3. OP No.2 also appeared through counsel and filed written statement and taking preliminary objections it is submitted that complaint is just an afterthought and has been filed for its harassment only.Complaint pertains to deficiency in after sales service of the product during warranty period which is attributed to manufacturer of the product i.e. OP-1 and its authorized service centre OP-3.Complainant used the product for some time and thereafter the complainant admittedly made a complaint that the product was not functioning properly.Thereafter, complainant has admittedly approached the OP-3 for alleged defects in the product.It is well-settled fact that after sales service during the tenure of warranty period repair is provided by manufacturer of product – OP-1.It is stated that there is no allegation for deficiency of service qua OP-2.Further, the OP-2 cannot be vexed with liability of deficiency in service of OP-3 and of OP-1 in question during warranty period, if any. Complaint is not maintainable against OP-2 as this Forum has no jurisdiction.There is no averment with regard to deficiency in service alleged in complaint qua OP-2.It is also submitted that complainant placed order with OP on 28.12.2016 to purchase of mobile in question.The complainant received the product on 31.12.2016 which was supplied by OP-1.On merits, each and every allegation specifically denied unless admitted hereinafter and lastly it is stated that complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed by him in prayer qua OP-2. As such complaint is liable to be dismissed against OP-2 with costs.

4. To prove the case, counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, job sheet Ex.C-2, invoice Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal, counsel for OP No.1&3 also tendered affidavit of Bikram Sharma Ex.OP1/1, true copies of documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/8 and closed the evidence. Counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Apurv Narula Ex.OP2/1 and true copies of documents i.e. Special Power of attorney Ex.OP2/2, terms and conditions Ex.OP2/3, bill dated 28.12.2016 Ex.OP2/4, warranty Ex.OP2/5 and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
6. The main grievance of the complainant is that mobile phone purchased by him created some problems after few days and he approached OP-3 service centre of OP No.1 and after seeing the mobile phone OP-3 demanded Rs.1700/- which is illegal because the mobile phone is under warranty

7. Admittedly, mobile phone was purchased by the complainant on 28.12.2016.Document Ex.C-2 is the job sheet dated 23.10.2017 and Ex.C-3 is cash memo.Except that complainant has not produced on record any document that prior to that date i.e. 23.10.2017, he ever made any complaint to OP-1 or approached any service centre of OP – mobile company.Hence, it is apparent that for the first time problem cropped up in the mobile phone on 23.10.2017 i.e. after almost 10 months of purchase.In the job sheet, it is stated against Symptoms: Damaged and misuse, Sub Symptoms: Display Touch broken and in Column Note: Mentioned heating, charging, problem, display broken, estimate given. Opposite party No.1 has produced on file documents Ex.OP1/5 to Ex.OP1/8 showing that display was broken.

8. Complainant frequently used the mobile for 10 months and when displays touch broken, he approached OP-3 – service centre when they prepared estimate of repair, he wanted to take shelter of warranty.Complainant never reported such problem to any of service centre of OP mobile company non lodged any online complaint. It is admitted fact that mobile in question was under warranty period as on 23/10/2016 when complainant approached OP-3 for repair.

9.   In the absence of any such document that display of mobile not broken due to misuse or falling of mobile etc, It cannot be said that repair/replacement of display of mobile is not covered under warranty
10. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the present complaint is partly allowed and OPs are directed to repair the mobile phone of the complainant to the extent which is covered under warranty and to charge for broken parts of mobile.OPs are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation costs to complainant.Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
11. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 04.02.2019 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Pronounced: Dated:  18.02.2019

(Inderjit)    (Capt.Yuvinder Singh Matta)                   (Kuljit Singh)

Member               Member                                 President