BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.165 of 2016
Date of Institution: 13.7.2016
Date of Decision: 10.08.2017
Dheeraj Vashishta age 42 years s/o Sh. Purshotam dutt Shashtri r/o Gali Shandshala wali, Nohria Bazar, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Mittal Mobile, Begu Road Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa through its owner/ prop./ authorized person.
2. Proprietor/ owner M/s Mittal Mobile, Begu Road Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
3. Reliance Retail Ltd Regd Office at 3rd Floor, Court House Lokmaniya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai- 400002 through its M.D/ Authorized person.
4. Reliance Retail Ltd (LYF Service Centre), 1st Floor, Rathore Tower, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa through its Incharge/ owner/ authorized person.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. RAGHBIR SINGH………………. PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT………………… MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. N.K. Daroliya, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties No.1 & 2 exparte.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite parties No.3 & 4.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that op no.2 is running the mobile shop in the name and address of op no.1 and is dealer of op no.3 and op no.4 is the authorized service centre at Sirsa. There was a scheme from the mobile company of op no.3 that if any customer uses their sim card in the handset/ mobile set of LYF smart phone i.e. sister concern of the Reliance Mobile, then there will be no charges of unlimited 4G data, outgoing, incoming and roaming etc. for three months, hence to avail this facility the complainant purchased one Mobile set make LYF smart phone having model No.LS-5014 from the op no.1 against an amount of Rs.7500/- vide invoice No.1687 dated 28.5.2016 with guarantee/ warrantee. It is further averred that complainant and his family members were spending more than Rs.3000/- on purchasing internet package as well as calls prior to purchase of the mobile set. That just after 15 days of its purchase, problem developed in the functioning of speaker and heating of set during call as well as charging etc. upon which the complainant approached the ops No.1 & 2 and op no.2 on checking and verifying the manufacturing defect kept the mobile and asked the complainant to come again within a week. It is further averred that when the complainant after the lapse of one week approached the op no.2, the complainant was shocked to find mobile set as dead one and he openly refused to do anything on the mobile. However, the complainant approached numbers of time to the ops No.1 and 2 for getting his grievance redressed but all in vain rather the op no.1 misbehaved with the complainant. The complainant also approached to op no.4 on 27.6.2016 vide job sheet No.8005855267 but op no.4 was not ready to repair the mobile set rather he suggested that there is manufacturing defect in the set and ops No.1 & 2 will get replaced the same with new one. So the complainant again approached to op no.1 but he was not ready to listen anything and returned the mobile set to the complainant without any solution. In this way, the ops have caused deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment to the complainant as price of Rs.7500/- was hardly collected by the complainant and thereafter he purchased so costly set to fulfill his ambitions and in order to use the facilities thereof. Hence, this complainant.
2. On notice, none appeared on behalf of ops No.1 & 2 and therefore they were proceeded against exparte.
3. Ops No.3 and 4 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction. On merits, it is submitted that op no.3 is not the manufacturer of the product and has imported the product and sold and distributed in India through its distribution channel. It is further submitted that second part of para No.4 relating to complainant approached op no.4 are incomplete, incorrect and not true. It is submitted that product was submitted by complainant with op no.4 on 27.6.2016 for which op no.4 issued a job sheet to the complainant. It is further submitted that after inspection and verification of the product, op no.4 noticed that some unauthorized repair were carried out to the product. The components of printed circuit board (PCB) of the product were burnt and damaged. Such damage to the product is not covered under warranty terms and conditions and the same was shown and communicated to the complainant by op no.4. It is further submitted that as the product was in warranty void condition, it was communicated to the complainant by op no.4 that any repairs to the product will be carried out only upon depositing repair charges by complainant. The remaining contents of the complainant are denied.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, warranty terms and conditions Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2 and copy of job card dated 27.6.2016 Ex.C3. On the other hand, ops No.3 and 4 produced affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of job sheet Ex.R2, copy of photograph Ex.R3, copy of warranty card Ex.R4 and power of attorney Ex.R5.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appearing parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. From the copy of bill Ex.C2, it is established on record that complainant purchased the mobile set in question from the ops No.1 & 2 for a sum of Rs.7500/- on 28.5.2016. From the copy of job sheet dated 27.6.2016, it is also evident that within a very short period of one month, the complainant narrated some defects in the mobile to the ops and the ops were required to repair the mobile in question and to make it defect free as per terms and conditions of the warranty. Although, the ops no.3 & 4 have averred that during inspection of the mobile it was noticed that components of printed circuit board (PCB) were burnt and damaged and on the job sheet dated 27.6.2016 produced by ops No.3 & 4 as Ex.R2, it is written that “estimate not approved by customer. PCB component burnt Main pcb faulty. 5064 Rs. Main pcb amount.” but the ops No.3 & 4 have not explained that how the said inner parts of the mobile in question were burnt. The ops No.3 & 4 have not placed on file any expert opinion in this regard to show that same were burnt due to mishandling of the phone by the complainant himself. As the defects in the mobile in question occurred just within one month of its purchase, the opposite parties are required to repair the mobile in question and to make it defect free after replacement of defective parts, if any free of costs.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to repair the mobile set in question of the complainant and to make it defect free after replacement of defective parts, if any free of costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the ops will be liable to replace the mobile in question with new one of same price and description within further period of 30 days. The complainant is directed to deposit the mobile in question to the op no.4 under written intimation to all the remaining ops. 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:10.8.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
