Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/56/2018

Mr. P.L. Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

05 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/56/2018
Date of Institution	:	24/01/2018
Date of Decision	:	05/02/2019

 

P.L. Arora S/o Late Sh. B.R. Arora, R/o H.No. 1120-A, Sec. 46-B (Previously, H.No.1116-C, Sector 46-B), U.T. Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Manufacturer of JIO LYF Water 7 LS-5504 Silver 869273020022482, Reliance Retail Limited, 5TTC Indl. Area, Thane Balapur Road, Gharsoli, Navi Mumbai – 4007001, through its Director.

 

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

 

[3]     M/s Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Limited, SCO No. 1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Prop/Owner.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh.Ammish Goel, Counsel for OPs No1 & 2.
	:	OP No.3 ex-parte.

 

PER Dr.S.K.Sardana, Member

 

1.         The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant had purchased one JIO LYF Water 7 LS-5504 Silver mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 on 03.02.2017 for Rs.7450/- vide retail invoice Annexure C-1. During the currency of the warranty, on experiencing problem with its SIM Tray, as it was not coming out, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2, who asked the Complainant to pay 80% of the mobile cost in case something is broken while opening the SIM Tray by its Service Engineer and returned the handset without repairing even after keeping it for more than one and half hour.  As the SIM slot was faulty & the Tray was not coming out and Opposite Party No.2 failed to rectify the defect, the Complainant request the Opposite Party No.2 to either repair the set or to replace the same with a new one, but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed their written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the product was brought to the repair center of answering Opposite Parties in a customer induced damage and Complainant did not even visit the repair center himself as such the product was not repaired being in warranty void condition. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 (Opposite Party No.3 being ex-parte).
7.         Significantly, the Opposite Party No.3 did not appear to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.3 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.3 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
8.         On perusal of the documentary evidence placed on record by both the sides, we find that the mobile handset in question was within the warranty period, when the Complainant gave the same to Opposite Party No.2 for carrying out necessary repairs.  A perusal of job-sheet dated 17.01.2018 shows that the mobile handset was having problem related to the sim jammed inside sim slot, sim not working and the same was returned to the Complainant without repairs. The Complainant has argued that the Opposite Party No.2 demanded 80% of the mobile cost in case smoothing is broken while opening the sim tray. In these circumstances, we feel that it was the bounden duty of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 to honour their warranty and to carry out necessary repairs without charging anything from the Complainant. It has come on record that despite being approached by the Complainant, his grievance has not been attended by the Opposite Parties.
9.         In our opinion, the Complainant had spent an amount of Rs.7450/- to purchase the mobile handset in question having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and not for moving the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties.
10.         It is important to note that due to the irresponsible attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has certainly suffered a lot. We feel that it was the duty of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to satisfy the Complainant by getting his mobile handset repaired, promptly, but they have miserably failed to do and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. The handset in dispute is stated to be returned to the Complainant without repair. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties in not repairing the defective mobile handset, especially when it is within the warranty period proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
11.         It is worthwhile to mention that as the handset was used by the Complainant for around 11 months, therefore, we deem it appropriate to deduct 50% of the invoice amount towards depreciation.
12.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, and the same is partly allowed qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, jointly & severally, are directed:-

[a]    To pay Rs.3,725/- (after deducting 50% of the invoice price towards depreciation) to the Complainant;

 [b]   To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

 

13.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till these are paid, apart from compliance of the directions as in sub-para [c].
14.         The Complainant shall return the defective mobile handset in question, to Opposite Parties, after the compliance of the order.
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
05/02/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”