Haryana

Karnal

CC/311/2017

Munish Kamboj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Poineer Tech Solutions - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Kumar Arora

17 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No.311 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 19.09.2017

                                                         Date of decision:17.12.2018

 

Munish Kamboj son of Shri Joginder Singh, resident of VPO Khera, Tehsil Indri, District  Karnal.                                                                                                                         …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. Pioneer Tech Solutions, # 1-8-462/A/1, Venkateshwara Temple Lane, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad, 500020 through its Authorized Signatory.

2.  M/s LYF Care, First Floor Honda Agency Building, Sector-14, U.E. Karnal, through its Proprietor/partner.

3. Reliance Retail Limited, Shed no.77/80, Indian Corporation Godown Mankoli Naka, village Dapode, Tal Bhiwandi, District Thane, Maharashtra, Pin-421302.

                                       

                                                                …..Opposite Parties

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary………Member

 

 Present  Shri Manoj Kumar Arora Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Raj Kumar Gonder Adv. for OPs no.1 and 2.

                OP no.1 exparte.

               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant purchased a ‘LYF’ Smart Mobile handset model Wind 7 LS-5016 from the OP no.1, through internet based company ‘Shop Clues’ for a sum of Rs.5512/- including taxes, vide invoice no.S1-5867 dated 16.12.2016 with one year warranty, which was delivered to the complainant vide order no.105774239 AWB no.167113134 through ECOM Courier. In the month of August, 2017 the said mobile set suddenly started creating white screen problem as the screen of said mobile phone started becoming complete white and then complainant was forced to restart the said mobile phone for disappearing white screen. On 9.8.2017 white screen problem in the said mobile phone had become permanent and now after appearing white screen the mobile set become hanged and on-off switch also stop working. Thereafter, on 10.8.2017 the complainant visited the office of the OP no.2 for repair of the mobile set, the employee of the OP no.2 inspected the mobile and informed to the complainant that there was some problem in I.C. due to vapours and then said employee of the OP no.2 started demanding Rs.4000/- from the complainant repair of the fault whereas at the time of purchasing of said mobile the value of mobile phone was Rs.5512/- including taxes. OP no.2 has flatly refused to give warranty of said mobile phone to the complainant whereas the mobile phone was under warranty. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged a complaint with National Consumer Helpline, vide Docket no.385801, vide which the complainant advised to approach to the OP no.2 through email and then accordingly the complainant sent two emails to the OP no.2 on 10.08.2017 and 11.08.2017 respectively, but no fruitful purpose has been served till date and the OPs were adamant not repair the mobile set of the complainant under warranty period. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP no.1 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 25.01.2018.

3.             OPs no.2 and 3 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction. On merits, it is pleaded that on 10.08.2017 complainant visited the office of OP no.2 to report the problem of ‘dead’ (non-functioning) product, for which complainant filled and completed customer information slip. Complainant deposited dead product with OP no.2, for which OP no.2 created jobsheet no.8010700134. After inspection, OP no.2 noticed that the main printed circuit board of the product was liquid logged. OP no.2 immediately demonstrated liquid logged product to the complainant. As the product was found in warranty void state, hence the product was warranty void state as per clause 5 of warranty term and condition. OP no.2 gave repair estimate, but complainant refused the estimate, refused to pay any charges and insisted for free of cost repair. OP no.2 explained that repair/replacement, if any, of the product is subject to warranty terms and conditions. The product was returned to the complainant. OP no.2 noted the comment on ‘liquid damaged handset, so returned without repair’ on the jobsheet no.8010700134, which was signed and acknowledged by the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on 05.06.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OPs no.2 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Parveen Pruthi Ex.DW1/A and documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 and closed the evidence on 27.11.2018.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that on 16.12.2016, he purchased a ‘LYF’ Smart Mobile Handset from the OP no.1 for a consideration of Rs.5512/-. Since from the first week of August 2017 the abovesaid mobile phone started created white screen problem. On 10.08.2017 the complainant met OP no.2 for the defect of the abovesaid mobile, the employee of OP no.2, who inspected the handset, had informed the complainant that there is some problem in I.C. due to vapours and demanded Rs.4000/- for repairing the said problem. The mobile was defected during the warranty period, complainant requested the OPs to remove the defect but OP no.2 had flatly refused to repair the said mobile without paying the repairing amount.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs no.2 and 3 is that on 10.08.2017 the complainant visited the office of OP no.2 to report the problem of “dead” (non-functioning) product, for which complainant filled and completed customer information slip. After inspection, OP no.2 noticed that main Printed Circuit Board (PCB) of the product was liquid logged (damaged) as the product was found in warranty void state. OP no.2 gave the repair estimate, but complainant refuse to pay any charges and insisted for free of cost repair.

8.             Admittedly, the said handset was purchased by the complainant from the OPs. In the month of August, 2017 the said mobile started creating a white screen problem. On 10.08.2017, the said mobile was inspected by the employee of OP no.2 and after the inspection of the handset there was some problem in I.C. due to vapours. The said problem is neither a mechanical defect nor covered under the warranty terms and conditions and OPs are not liable for the said defect. Thus, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we do not find any merits, in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated:17.12.2018

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

   (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member