Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/532/2017

Amrit Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Lyf Water - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

16 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

=====

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/532/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	20/07/2018
Date   of   Decision	:	16/04/2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amrit Pal Singh son of Harjinder Singh, resident of House No. 141/26, Khuda Jassu, Chandigarh, U.T.

….Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

 

1]    M/s Lyf Water, having its Office at SCO 87-88, 3^rd Floor, Sector 34, Chandigarh, U.T., through its Manager.

 

2]    Three Vee Marketing Private Limited, SCO 1028-29, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, U.T., through its Owner.

 

 …. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE: SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR         PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                     MEMBER

                SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	None.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

              Briefly the facts giving rise to the present Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased a LYF Water 1 LS5002 mobile handset from Opposite Party No.2 on 19.02.2017 for Rs.7700/- vide bill Annexure C-1. From day one, the mobile handset was slow in processing and whilst on charging its screen tends to diminish due to which it was not giving proper and clear image. Accordingly, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties on 12-13.07.2017 and 15.07.2017, however, despite the said mobile handset having been in warranty period, the Opposite Parties demanded Rs.5500/- for its repair, which as per Complainant, Opposite Parties were duty bound to repair, since the mobile handset was in warranty period.When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.        Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.        Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement has pleaded that it provided requisite after sale service when complaint regarding product in question was reported by the Complainant; and after inspection and verification the product was found to be in warranty void state due to customer induced damage; the Complainant was informed that he would have to bear the cost of replacement of the parts of the product and relevant repair charges, which he refused and insisted for free of cost repairs or replacement of the product. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.        Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

5.        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 (Opposite Party No.2 being ex-parte) and have also perused the record.

 

6.        In the present case, the sole grouse of the Complainant is that, when he took the mobile handset to the Opposite Parties for the requisite repairs, after using it only for five months, they refused to repair the same and asked for Rs.5500/- for repairing the same. Hence, the present Complaint.

 

7.        The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 (the Manufacturer) is that the mobile handset was found in damaged state, hence the repair could not be offered as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, free of cost. The Complainant was accordingly given an estimate of repairs, to which he himself refused, and took the handset back when the same was submitted to him on 15.07.2017.

 

8.        Perusal of the job-sheets dated 14.07.2017 (OP-2) and 15.07.2017 (OP-6) clearly reveal that the handset in question was found with dented chrome; hence due to this kind of physical damage the estimate of repair was given to the Complainant, but he himself chose not to pay the same. Importantly, after filing of the written statement, the Complainant was given opportunities to file rejoinder on 17.01.2018 and 12.02.2018, but despite getting said opportunities he did not file the same. Finally, even on 10.4.2018, when the arguments were heard, neither the Complainant nor his counsel appeared for arguing the case. Non-rebutting the version of Opposite Party No.1 clearly indicates that in one way the Complainant himself admitted the contentions of Opposite Party No.1. Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

 

9.        For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.    

 

10.        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced                        

16.04.2018

                                 Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

                         

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

“Dutt”