BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.313 of 2017

Date of Instt. 24.08.2017

Date of Decision: 11.03.2019

Prabhjit Singh S/o Sh. Mohinderpal Singh R/o H. No.B-9/530, Santokh Pura, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Reliance Retail Ltd., PB-JLDR-JC-01, Anmol Complex, Kapurthala Road, Near Jammu Hospital, Basti Mithu, Jalandhar.

2. M/s Giptech Computers, Near KMV College, Doaba Chowk, Jalandhar.

3. M/s Reliance Retail Ltd., 5-TTC, Industrial Area, Thane, Belapur Road, Gansoli, Nave Mumbai.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. Rocky Heer, Ad Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Karan Kalia, Adv Counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OP No.2 is dealing in selling new mobiles and the complainant is consumer as per provisions provided under Consumer Protection Act. The OP No.1 is a retailer of mobiles of the LYF Smart Phone and having its service centre.

2. That the complainant has purchased a new mobile of LYF Smart Phone, Model LYF WIND4, bearing its EMI No.911498105214021, for Rs.6800/-, from OP No.2 against a bill issued by the OP No.2 bearing No.GC/1481 dated 17.08.2016. It is pertinent to mention here that the mobile was under under warranty for one year from the date of purchase. After few days, there was a fault caused in the mobile phone. The display and touch was not working properly. The complainant approached to the service station i.e. OP No.1 for repairing the fault caused in the new mobile. The OP No.1 has given job sheet No.8007085063, which is dated 18.11.2016 to the complainant and the OP No.1 gave assurance to the complainant that fault in phone will remove shortly and they kept the phone with them. Photocopy of the Job Sheet is attached herewith. The complainant visited various times to the service centre of the OP No.1, but officials of the OP No.1 not replied properly. The mobile is under warranty and till date has not been repaired by the service agency of OP No.1. The complainant has suffered loss due to the inadequate service of OPs. The complainant have also suffered tension and agony due to inconvenience caused by service agency of OPs. In such way, the complainant is entitled to recover the amount of mobile as well as compensation amount, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- from OPs. OPs are liable to pay the full amount of the mobile as well as the compensation amount to the complainant, as such, they have created huge while providing inconvenient service to the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.6800/- with interest @ 24% per annum thereon and further OPs be directed to pay compensation for deficiency in service of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, all the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has based the present complaint on mere conjectures and surmises. It is further averred that the complainant has failed to bring on record any cogent and convincing evidence to further his averments in the present complaint. It is further alleged that this Forum has no jurisdiction, as the warranty card accompanying with the product provides for exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts in Mumbai. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from OP No.2, who is a dealer of the OP No.1 and further admitted that the extended warranty of the mobile is 12 months, but the problem occurred to the mobile phone due to manhandling by the complainant himself and due to that the touch of the product was broken and display of the product was damaged and whenever any part of the mobile is broken, then the same is not covered under the warranty and accordingly, the complainant was informed and he was asked to bear the cost of replacement of parts of the product and relevant repair, but the complainant refused to accept the offer of the OPs and accordingly, the complainant took back the product on the same day i.e. 18.11.2016 from OP No.1, for which the complainant has signed and acknowledged job sheet bearing no.8007085063 and further alleged that there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs rather the OPs are always ready to hear the complainant and to accept the product for repairing purpose. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the claim of the complainant, the complainant along with his counsel tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 Copy of Bill Dated 17.08.2016 and Ex.C-2 Copy of Job Sheet Dated 18.11.2016 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A along with some documents Ex.OP-1 Copy of Warranty Card, Ex.OP-2 Copy of Customer Information Slip dated 18.11.2016, Ex.OP-3 Copy of Job Sheet Dated 18.11.2016 and Ex.OP-4 Copy of Complainant Visit and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also scanned the case file very minutely.

7. Before imparting with the main controversy, we like to discuss the legal issue raised by the OP that this Forum has no jurisdiction. In order to authenticate this plea, the counsel for the OP miserable failed to satisfy this Forum how this Forum has no jurisdiction because simply mentioning in the warranty card accompanied with the product provides for exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts in Mumbai, will not oust the jurisdiction of this Forum because if there is written agreement between the parties and the same is signed by both the parties, then we can consider it that the same is applicable, but the warranty card is not signed by both the parties and it can not be construed as a contract between the parties So, we do not agree with the submission of learned counsel for the OP rather find that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

8. From the facts as elaborated in the complaint as well as in the written reply itself speak that the complainant purchased a mobile phone from OP No.2, who is the dealer of the OP No.1 and Invoice Ex.C-1 dated 17.08.2016 has been issued by OP No.2, whereby received the price of the mobile Rs.6800/- and version of the complainant that he feel some problems in the mobile phone and accordingly, he deposited the same with the service centre on 18.11.2016 and copy of the Job Sheet issued by the service centre is Ex.C-2, but the service centre refused to repair the mobile phone of the complainant, which got some problems within the warranty period and as such, there is a negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9. We have considered the aforesaid version of the complainant and find that the complainant purchased the mobile on 17.08.2016 and some defect was occurred therein on 18.11.2016 and on the same day, it was deposited with the service centre of the OP No.1 and returned back to the complainant without repair and a note regarding 'without repair' is given on the Job Sheet Ex.OP/3, wherein the signature of the complainant is very much available and even the terms and conditions were also explained to the complainant whereon complainant also put his signature, the said terms and conditions is a part of the job sheet Ex.OP/3. Picture of the mobile phone Ex.OP/4 itself shows that there is a broken damage on the display of the mobile phone, but in order to establish that there is no damages due to fallen or other reason by the complainant to refute the claim of the OP, took in the written reply. Now, in this complaint question of warranty is not involved because whenever any damage caused due to improper usage of the product or due to fallen any part of the product is broken, then it does not cover within the warranty period and these facts has been established by the OP by bringing on the file copy of Job Sheet Ex.OP/3 and even the OP asked the complainant that they are ready to repair the mobile phone, but subject to payment being reason the same is not covered within the warranty period due to manhandling, but the complainant get back the mobile phone without getting its repair after making a payment, if so, then there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

10. Further the complainant got returned the defective mobile phone from the OP on 18.11.2016 as per Job Sheet Ex.OP/3 and then thereafter, the complainant remained silent for about 10 months and thereafter, filed the instant complaint on 24.08.2017, which shows that there is virtually no such like a defect in the mobile phone which can be said a manufacturing nor it is alleged by the complainant in his complaint or in his affidavit. So, with these observations, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, but in the interest of justice, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and further OPs are directed to repair the mobile of the complainant on the basis of charges as required and accordingly, this complaint is decided. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

11.03.2019 Member President