CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO. CC/210/15

                                                                                                     Date of Institution:-13.05.2015

                                                                                                     Order reserved on:-27.04.2023

                                                                                                     Date of Decision:-08.05.2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shubham Bhushan,

S/o Sh. Shashi Bhushan,

R/o B-102, First Floor,

Jankasar CGHS Limited,

Plot No.12, Sector-18A,

Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078                             ......Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s Reliance Digital Retail Limited,

(Through Its Store Manager)

Pinnacle Mall, Dwarka,

Plot no.3, Sector-10,

Opp.: Sector-10 Metro Station, Dwarka,

Dwarka, New Delhi – 110075.

2. M/s Reliance Retail Limited,
3.  

Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao,

Mumbai – 400002, Maharastra.

3. M/s Karbonn Mobiles,

D-170, Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase-1, New Delhi - 110020 .…..Opposite parties

O R D E R

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that on 29.09.2013 he had purchased one mobile of make Karbon-Titanium-S1 from OP-1 vide bill no.H0011 dated 29.09.2013. OP-1 is franchise of OP-2. OP-3 is the manufacture of the mobile phone. The OP-1 has requested him at the time of purchase to avail the facility of extended warranty for one year upon which he had agreed to avail the said facility for one year which was valid till 29.09.2014. The mobile phone was earlier repaired by the OP-1 on his complaint as it was within the warranty period. On 28.09.2014, the mobile phone was physically damaged due to some unavoidable circumstances. He contacted the OP-1 on the same day rectify the damage but a lame excuse was taken that executed is on leave and he was advised to come on 03.10.2014 with the assurance that defect will be rectified. On 05.10.2014 he along with his father visited the OP-1 where Sh. Madan i.e. representative of OP-1 has refused to rectify the damage and advised him to contact OP-3. Sh. Lalit, Sr. Executive of OP-1 told him that additional charges have to be paid for the rectification of the defect. Mr. Lalit directed Sh. Madan to take the mobile phone. Sh. Madan has used unparliamentarily and flatly refused to take the mobile phone and insulted them. Sh. Madan kept the mobile phone on their repeated request but did not give any receipt to this effect. He has been trying to contact the opposite parties for the return of mobile phone after repair but in vain. Hence, this Complaint.

2. The OP-1 & 2 have filed the reply to the fact that complainant was apprised about the features of the mobile phone as well as terms and conditions of extended warranty and he was also provided with booklet/card of the warranty terms. The warranty does not cover physical damage at the hands of customer. The role of OP-1 is limited so there in no deficiency on the part of OP-1. There is no cause of action against OP-1 & 2. The complainant, in Para 6 of legal notice dated 13.10.2014 and Para 7 of the complaint, has stated that phone has got physically damaged due to some unavoidable circumstances. The complaint has been filed with the intention of having wrongful gain. The extended warranty was given but there was no insurance of the phone as physical damage/theft is covered only under insurance and not under warranty. The allegations of the complainant are denied. There is no deficiency on service on their part.

3. The defence of OP-3 has been struck of vide order dated 01.12.2016.

4. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments of the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.

5. Both the parties were directed to lead the evidence.

6. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and relied upon the documents. Ex.CW-1/1 is customer care data with serial no. 51401, Ex.CW-1/2 is the gate pass dated 05.10.2014, Ex.CW-1/3 is the copy of the legal notice dated 13.10.2014, Ex.CW-1/4 are the postal receipts. The Exhibits are not put on the documents.

7. The Opposite Parties no.1 & 2 have filed the affidavit of Sh. Uday Shankar Sharma in evidence and reiterated the stand taken in the reply.

8. Both the parties have filed the written arguments.

9. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record including written submissions.

10. It is clear from the material from record that on 29.09.2013 complainant has purchased the mobile phone in question with OP-1 which is manufactured by OP-3. OP-1 is franchise of OP-2. The complainant has taken extended period of warranty for one year and extended warranty card bearing sr. no. 51401 is annexed by the complainant with the complaint.

11. It is the case of the complainant that mobile phone has got physically damaged due to some unavoidable circumstances. This fact finds reflection in Para 6 of legal notice dated 13.10.2014 as well as in the complaint.

12. The terms and conditions of resQ care plan shows that provision of the services under this contact does not cover the product/equipment which has been damaged due to unusual physical/electrics/water/liquid seepage/rat bite/urination. The booklet is placed on record by the complainant.

13. The defence of the OP-1 & 2 is that the extended warranty does not cover the physical damage to the mobile phone.

14. The mobile phone in question has been physically damaged due to unavoidable circumstances. The complainant did not specify the unavoidable circumstances which led to physical damage to the phone. The complainant cannot go beyond the terms and conditions of the resQ care plan. The physical damage is not covered under the extended period of warranty for one year. The complainant cannot insist to repair the mobile phone free of cost under the premise that it is under extended period of warranty. The mobile phone in question was not got insured which covers such kind of damages. The complainant has failed to point out any deficiency of service once the damage is not covered under extended period of warranty. Mere filing of an affidavit in evidence does not mean that allegations of the complaint stands corroborated.

15. The evidence led by the complainant does not show that there was any deficiency on the part of OP-1 & 2 as damage in question is not covered under extended period of warranty.

16. There is no merit in the complaint. The complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.

• Order be given dasti to both parties.
• The file be consigned to record room thereafter.
• Order pronounced on 08.05.2023.