Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/687/2017

Ghanshyam Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Reliance Retail Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

25 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/687/2017
Date of Institution	:	04/10/2017
Date of Decision	:	25/04/2018

 

Ghanshyam Goyal son of Shri Jagan Nath resident of H.No.647, Milk Colony, Dhanas, UT, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Reliance Retail Limited, 3^rd Floor, Court House, Lock Manya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai 400002 through its Managing Director.

2.     M/s Reliance Retail Limited, SCO No.87-88, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160034 through its Branch Manager.

3.     M/s Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Ltd., SCO No.1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                    

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Ammish Goel, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2
	:	OP-3 ex-parte

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations are, the complainant had purchased a mobile phone from OP-3 for a sum of Rs.8,100/- on 22.1.2017. It carried warranty of one year except battery which carried a warranty of six months.  From the very beginning, the mobile phone was giving trouble. The complainant approached OP-3 a number of times, but, he was told that it was normal in these sets. In the third week of August, 2017, the mobile stopped working during the warranty period.  After a lot of persuasion, OP-3 told the complainant to approach OP-2, authorised service centre of OP-1.  Accordingly on 28.8.2017 job sheet was issued and estimate of Rs.5,181/- was prepared for part cost and Rs.240/- for labour cost totaling Rs.5,421/-. The complainant did not approve the estimate as the cell phone was within warranty period, but, the service Centre refused to either replace the set or replace the required part free of cost as per warranty.  Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for refund of the price of the mobile phone alongwith compensation and litigation expenses etc.
2.         OPs 1 & 2 had contested the consumer complaint, filed their written statement and denied all the allegations. Reference was made to the precedent that the actual loss suffered is to be awarded to the consumer and no other loss. It is also the case that it is a cooked up story.  As a matter of fact, the cell phone was damaged and was not covered under the warranty.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-3 did not appear despite due service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.11.2017. 
4.         Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for OPs 1 & 2 and gone through the record of the case.  Our conclusions, derived from the record, are as follows :-
6.         A perusal of the record shows the date of purchase of the cell phone as 22.1.2017 and date of recorded visit for repair as 28.8.2017 i.e. to say after a gap of about 7 months.  There is also Annexure OP-1/1 i.e. job sheet dated 28.8.2017 which was signed by the complainant.  Its perusal shows under column No.12 the symptoms diagnosed were “damaged and misuse” and sub symptoms were “display/touch broken” and there is also a note on the right hand site of Annexure OP-1/1 “LED broken”. 
7.         This above statement referred in the job sheet is admitted to be correct by the complainant and in token of it he had appended his signatures and after repair the product was found satisfactory and in working condition. There is also a note in the hand of the complainant “estimate not approved”. This further shows, the complainant was aware of his right and if the smart phone was not damaged and misused, touch/ LED broken in his custody, then he was not likely to sign this document as he had objected to the estimate only.
8.         A perusal of the warranty (Annexure C-2) does not authorize the free replacement or repair of broken parts.  The OPs have also produced on record photographs Annexure OP-1/3 which shows on the face of it that the screen was damaged/broken. Therefore, the loss, if any caused to the mobile phone in question was due to mishandling and negligence on the part of the complainant only and the same was rightly not covered under the warranty. 
9.         In view of the above discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Resultantly the consumer complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
25/04/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President