BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.127 of 2017
Date of Institution: 7.6.2017
Date of Decision: 22.12.2017
Sanjay Kumar aged about 52 years son of Shri Subhash Chander, resident of 104, DC Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Meet Enterprises, Shop No.30, Trade Tower Market, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Proprietor.
2. Reliance Retail Ltd., HR-SIRS-JC-01, 1st Floor, Rathore Tower, Dabwali Road, Sirsa-125055 through its authorized person.
3. Reliance Retail Ltd., 3rd Floor, Court House, Lok Manya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai- 400002 through its authorized person.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT………….MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that on 13.5.2016, complainant purchased a new handset from opposite party no.1 model Reliance Lyf Wind 4 vide bill No.424 dated 13.5.2016 for a sum of Rs.7000/- with one year warrantee. That in the month of May, June, 2016 the said mobile started giving troubles of touch, hanging and heating etc. and complainant contacted op no.1 in this regard and requested to remove the defect after getting the same checked but op no.1 sent him to op no.2. On contact to op no.2, the mobile was kept by op no.2 with the promise to hand over the same within a short period in ok condition. Thereafter, the mobile was handed over to him after updating the software with the assurance that no such problem shall be occurred in future. But since then the complainant has been making rounds to the op no.2 for repair of the mobile as a number of times above problem occurred in the mobile and there was no improvement in the handset and now since April, 2017 the mobile is in custody of op no.2 and his grievance has not been redressed. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties filed written statement submitting therein that complainant never visited op no.2 prior to 15.4.2017 to report any complaint in respect of the product. It is further submitted that on 15.4.2017 i.e. after more than 11 months from the date of purchase of product, complainant visited op no.2 for the very first time to report the alleged problem of touch not working. After inspection and verification, op no.2 found that all the screws of the product were missing, touch of the product was duplicate and the product appeared to be in unauthorized repair state. The op no.2 immediately demonstrated to the complainant that the screws of the product are missing, touch of the product is duplicate and unauthorized repairs carried out on the product and the warranty is void and he will have to bear the cost of replacement of parts and relevant repair charges. Op no.2 provided estimate of repair to the complainant however complainant refused to accept the fact that unauthorized repairs being carried out on the product and also refused to make any payment. Complainant left the premises of op no.2 without collecting the product and did not visit after 15.4.2017. On 9.5.2017, op no.2 sent a reminder letter to complainant to collect the product lying with op no.2 however complainant neither collected the product nor responded to the letter. On 29.6.2017, op no.2 sent second reminder letter to complainant to collect the product but to no effect.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. It is proved fact on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 on 13.5.2016 for a sum of Rs.7000/- as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C1. From the copy of job sheet dated 15.4.2017 Ex.C2, it is evident that mobile of the complainant suffered certain defects i.e. touch not working within the warranty period. So, it appears from the evidence of complainant that definitely the mobile of the complainant is suffering from some defects and further mobile of the complainant was within warranty period when he approached the service center and it is legal obligation of the ops to provide better services to the complainant in case there is any defect in the mobile set.
6. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile in question and to make it defect free even by replacing parts, if any without any cost and hand over the same to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:22.12.2017. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
