Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/178/2023

RELIANCE DIGITAL STORE - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEERAJ KUMAR RAJPUT - Opp.Party(s)

LALIT SOOD

08 Aug 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	178 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	21.07.2023
Date of Decision	:	08.08.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Reliance Digital Store, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Store Manager Sh. Shravan Thakur S/o Sh. Sher Singh.

……Appellant/Opposite Party.

 

Versus

 

Sh. Neeraj Kumar Rajput S/o Sh. Jitendra Pal Singh Rajput R/o House No.2410, Sector 28-C, U.T., Chandigarh.

 

 …..Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

              MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY :-

 

Sh. Lalit Sood, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Neeraj Kumar Rajput, respondent in person (on VC).

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by opposite party, namely, Reliance Digital Store (appellant herein), against order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’), whereby consumer complaint bearing No.442 of 2021 filed by the complainant (respondent herein) has been allowed directing the appellant to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation & litigation expenses within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, it has been made liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/-. 

2]             Briefly stated, the facts before the District Commission were that the respondent purchased one mobile handset of Vivo 15 Pro (Model No.Vivo 1818) from the appellant Store on 4.1.2021 vide bill Annexure C-1. It was told by the appellant that it was just a demo phone and there was no fault in the said new phone. Accordingly, the respondent purchased the same. However, after few months of its purchase, the mobile phone started giving problem, therefore, it was taken to authorized Service Centre of Vivo at Sector 18, Chandigarh where the official, after inspection, told the respondent that the warranty of said mobile phone has expired and that the same had already been repaired at the service centre twice and battery had also been changed. The respondent brought the matter to the notice of the appellant Store but it refuted the claim for replacement or repair under warranty and told that the replacement was not possible and repair would be done on chargeable basis. It was the allegation that the appellant sold him an old & used mobile phone. 

3]             While contesting the complaint, the appellant/ opposite party in its reply, pleaded that the respondent had purchased a Demo (Display) mobile phone from its store and accordingly, he was given heavy discount on it.  It was stated that while purchasing the demo mobile phone in question, the respondent was explained about the reason for giving heavy discount, which was never given on fresh & sealed/packed product. It was further stated that before selling the said mobile phone, the appellant apprised about complete actual status of the said mobile set and having agreed to it, the respondent signed undertaking dated 4.1.2021 understanding that no exchange, replacement or refund of the product would be entertained.  It was further stated that the appellant had been transparent from day one and the respondent was informed that there was no issue in the mobile handset and repairs would be done on chargeable basis by the service centre. It was also informed to the appellant that the replacement of the handset was not possible and it would be repaired on chargeable basis only.

4]             After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record, the District Commission allowed the complaint, as stated above. 

5]             The order of the District Commission has been assailed on the grounds that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the vital fact that the respondent has not brought on record any report of mechanic of the phone or the expert in the field who certifies that there is a problem in the handset; that the District Commission further erred in holding that the appellant has not clarified that the demo/display mobile phone means used and repaired product, whereas the respondent has himself admitted in the undertaking about the status of the said handset and that the said handset was delivered to the respondent in a working conditions and there was no defect in the said handset, which fact has been intentionally and deliberately concealed by the respondent.

6]          The respondent appeared in person before this Commission and while reiterating the averments made in the complaint, supported the order passed by the District Commission and prayed for dismissal of the appeal of the appellant.

7]             After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the impugned order and going through the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal filed by the opposite party is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

8]             As regards the first contention that the respondent has not brought on record any report of mechanic of the phone or the expert in the field who certifies that there is a problem in the handset, it may be stated here that the same is not required in the instant case because it is not the case of the respondent that there was any manufacturing defect or inherent defect in the mobile handset. It is case of misrepresentation by the appellant while selling a mobile handset to the respondent saying that it is just a demo phone for visiting customers and there was no fault in the same being a new phone. Therefore, the contention raised stands rejected.

9]             Now coming to the next contention that the District Commission erred in holding that the appellant has not clarified that the demo/display mobile phone means used and repaired product, whereas the respondent has himself admitted in the undertaking about the status of the said handset and that the said handset was delivered to the respondent in a working condition and there was no defect in the said handset, which fact has been intentionally and deliberately concealed by the respondent, it may be stated here that in the undertaking, it has specifically been mentioned that there is no defect found and all accessories, warranty card, manual etc. are available with the product in good conditions. The main allegation of the respondent is that when he took the mobile handset to the service centre, it was informed to him that the warranty of said mobile phone has expired and that the same had already been repaired at the service centre twice and battery had also been changed and therefore, in the absence of warranty, repairs done were chargeable. This fact stands proved from Delivery Receipt, Annexure C-3, wherein against “Repair type”, it was mentioned that “Chargeable repair”. Thus, it stands established that the mobile handset sold to the respondent was out of warranty and the appellant misled the respondent by stating in the undertaking that warranty card available with the product in good condition. Not within warranty means that it was not a new handset and that too repaired one. This fact was rather concealed by the appellant, while obtaining an undertaking from the respondent and once, the appellant itself was at fault by non-disclosure of true picture of the mobile handset sold to the respondent, the undertaking, which was got singed from the respondent, was not of any significance and no benefit out of it can be derived by the appellant. In our considered view, the District Commission rightly observed that the appellant failed to place on record any evidence to show that it had explained to the respondent that the mobile handset was used & already repaired one and was out of warranty. Rather, its repair was not denied or disputed by the appellant. The appellant also did not clarify that the Demo (Display) mobile phone meant used & repaired products. Bare perusal of Invoice dated 04.01.2021 and the undertaking transpires that nowhere in these documents, it was mentioned that it was a Demo mobile handset. However, per Invoice, a discount of 8% i.e. Rs.1,599.20 as Display discount and Rs.4,997/- as OOP 25 PER discount was given by the appellant. The appellant also placed on record photocopy of both the sides of mobile box cover, bare perusal whereof shows that nowhere on the box, it was mentioned as demo mobile handset. Rather, the appellant alleged it to be a demo mobile handset and the said mobile handset was sold to the respondent terming it to be a demo and a new one. Thus, it has been established beyond doubt that the appellant sold a used & repaired mobile handset to the respondent, which certainly amounted to deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on its part. Therefore, this contention of the appellant also stands rejected.

10]           In our considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the District Commission is well based, legal and valid in the eyes of law and as such, this Commission finds no reason to interfere in the well reasoned order of the District Commission. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11]           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit with no orders as to costs.

12]           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

13]           File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

08.08.2023.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

Ad