BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 79 of 2018
Date of Institution : 28.2.2018
Date of Decision : 15.05.2019
Krishan Kumar son of Late Sh. Balwant Rai resident of Ward No.8 Ellenabad.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s PM Telecom, Gaushala Road, Ellenabad now Devi Lal Chowk Ellenabad, District Sirsa, through its Prop./Partner.
2. LYF Mobile Company, Registered Office, IIIrd Floor, Court House, LT Marg, Dhobi Talao Mumbai, thourgh its MD/Auth. Person.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL……MEMBER.
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that the complainant was in need of a mobile, hence he visited the shop of op no.1 and asked to show a mobile of reputed company. Then op no.1 asked that there is a mobile of LYF-F8 and op also assured that it is of a very good and reputed company and op asked that op will be held liable for all type of guarantee and warranty and if there will be any defect in that mobile, then op will replace the same with new one or to return the sale price of that mobile. The complainant get ready for the same and purchased the same vide Bill No.181 dated 09.02.2017 vide IMEI No.911542053549126. Thereafter, within few months of purchase of the mobile, the said mobile started to create problems i.e. Auto off, charging problem, display problem and camera problem and other problems etc. Complainant immediately approached op no.1 and told about these problems in the mobile and also requested the ops number of times for redressal of his grievance but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, ops no.1 & 2 appeared and filed written statement in which they have taken preliminary objections regarding maintainability, the complainant has failed to bring on record any cogent and coherent evidence and this forum does not have jurisdiction, as the warranty card accompanying with the product provides for exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts in Mumbai. It is further submitted that information about guarantee and warranty extended on the product, provided by op no.1 to the complainant. The op do not extend any guarantee on the product. Standard warranty on the handsfree and USB cable is extended for the period of 3 months from date of original retail purchase. Standard warranty on the charger and battery of product is extended for period of 6 months from date of original retail purchase. Standard warranty on the product (excluding battery, charger, USB cable and handsfree) is extended for period of 12 months. Warranty extended on the product is subject to warranty terms and conditions as contained in the warranty card accompanying with the product. It is further submitted that the complainant never visited any of the authorized service centre for LYF brand mobile handsets of op no.2, to report any problem in respect of the product. The op no.2 has checked its service records of all of its service centers, and visitor’s registers, and it could not locate any record for any complaint reported by complainant, in respect of the product, or any service history related to the product. Complainant should be put to strict proof to prove the factum of his averments. It is further submitted that the complainant sending legal notice is incomplete, misleading and hence not admitted. On 14.2.2018, the op no.2 received a notice dated 3.2.2018 issued by Mr. Dinesh Verma, Advocate, on behalf of complainant. The op no.2 investigated the matter and gathered information from its service centers, so that basis its fact finding, op no.2 sent detailed response to complainant’s notice. However, the complainant never reported any complaint with any of the service centers of op no.2, there was no service record for the product. Op no.2 sent reply on 19.2.2018 by Bluedart Courier to complainant’s Advocate and the same was delivered to complainant’s Advocate on 2.3.2018. Remaining all the averments made by the complainant are denied by the ops and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Forum against the answering ops and the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs, in the interest of justice.
3. The parties have led evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered Ex.CW1/A- his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 postal receipts, legal notice Ex. C3, registered AD Ex.C4, bill Ex.C5, whereas opposite party also tendered warranty terms and conditions Ex.R1, blank warranty chit Ex.R2, courier receipt Ex.R3, reply to the notice dated 03.2.2018 Ex.R4, list of name Ex.R5.
4. We have heard Ld. counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for Ops No.1&2 and perused the record carefully.
5. The Ld. counsel for the complainant in order to prove his case has submitted affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated averments in the complaint. Further, he produced the Ex.C2 postal receipts, legal notice Ex. C3, registered AD Ex.C4, bill Ex.C5
6. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties no.1& 2 also tendered warranty terms and conditions Ex.R1, blank warranty chit Ex.R2, courier receipt Ex.R3, reply to the notice dated 03.2.2018 Ex.R4, list of name Ex.R5.
7. It is admitted fact between the parties that, the complainant purchased the said mobile of LYF–F8 vide Bill No.181 dated 09.02.2017 vide IMEI No.911542053549126 for the amount of Rs.4200/- on 22.9.2017. Op no.1 had also given every type of guaranty/warranty of the said mobile for one year. Within few months of purchase of the mobile, the said mobile started to create problems i.e. Auto off, charging problem, display problem and camera problem and other problems etc. and he approached the op no.1 for the replacement of the mobile several times but they did not pay any heed and finally he filed the present complainant.
8. The perusal of the sale invoice reveals that the mobile was purchased by the complainant on 9.2.2017 and after few months of purchase of the mobile, the said mobile started to create problems and he approached the op no.1, but however, the complainant has not produced the job card and he did not went to any service center of op for inspecting the said mobile and he also did not place on record any expert opinion from which it comes be persumed that the said mobile has any problem.
9. It is proved fact on record that the mobile was purchased by the complainant from the op no.1 on 9.2.2017 with the warranty of one year but, however, the complainant on 28.2.2018 has lodged the present complaint against the ops after the expiry of the period of warranty and so, the complainant does not appear to be maintainable.
10. In view of above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. The parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum: Member Member President,
Dated: 15.05.2019 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa,
