Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/442/2021

Neeraj Kumar Rajput - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Digital Store - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

25 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	442 of 2021
Date  of  Institution	:	15.07.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	25.04.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Neeraj Kumar Rajput, aged 31 years, son of Sh.Jitendra Pal Singh Rajput, resident of House No.2410, Sector 28-C, U.T., Chandigarh.

            …..Complainant

 

Versus

Reliance Digital Store, Elate Mall Chandigarh U.T. Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Store Manager.

   ….. Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

Argued by:-     Complainant in person.

Sh.Sanjeev Pabbi, Counsel of OP

 

 

PER  B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

        The case of the complainant briefly is that he has purchased one mobile handset of Vivo 15 Pro (Model No.Vivo 1818) from OP Store on 4.1.2021 vide bill Ann.C-1.  It is stated that the OP store while selling the said phone, told the complainant that it was just a demo phone and there was no fault in this Smartphone and it was new.  As such, the complainant made purchase of said mobile phone from OP.  It is stated that after few months of purchase, the mobile phone started giving problem, so it was taken to authorized Service Centre of Vivo at Sector 18, Chandigarh where the official, after inspection & check, told the complainant that the warranty of said mobile phone has expired and that the said mobile phone has already been repaired at the service centre twice and battery has also been changed (Ann.C-3).  The complainant brought this matter to the notice of OP Store but they refuted the claim for replacement or repair under warranty and told that the replacement was not possible and repair will be done on chargeable basis (Ann.C-9).  It is submitted that the OP has sold him an old & used mobile phone.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred alleging the said act & conduct of the OP as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

        The Opposite Party has filed written version stating that the complainant has purchased a Demo (Display) mobile phone from the store of OP and accordingly he was given heavy discount on it.  It is stated that while purchasing the demo mobile phone in question, the complainant was explained about the reason for giving heavy discount which is never given on fresh & sealed/packed product. It is submitted that before selling the said Vivo mobile phone, the OP apprised about complete actual status of the said mobile set and having agreed to it, the complainant signed undertaking dated 4.1.2021 (Ann.C-9) understanding that no exchange, replacement or refund of the product will be entertained, so now he is not entitled to any relief.  It is also submitted that the OP had been transparent from day one and the complainant was informed that there is no issue in the mobile handset and repairs will be done on chargeable basis by the service centre.  It is further submitted that the complainant was informed that the replacement of the handset was not possible and it will be repaired on chargeable basis. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]      We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.

 

5]      The thorough perusal of the file reveals that the complainant was denied repair or replacement of his newly purchased mobile handset by the OP on the ground that it was sold to him as a Demo (Display) handset by giving heavy discount.  The OP also stated that the complainant also signed undertaking dated 4.1.2021 understanding that no exchange, replacement or refund of the product will be entertained, so now he is not entitled to any relief.

 

6]      We do not find any merit in the contentions of the OP.  The Opposite Party has failed to place on record any documentary evidence to show & specify as to how much discount has been given to the complainant against the mobile in question it being a Demo (Display) handset.  Further, the OP has also not placed on record any evidence to show that they had explained to the complainant that the mobile phone in question is used & already repaired one and was out of warranty.  The repair of the mobile handset in question has not been denied or disputed by the OP.  It is not the case of the OP that they also sells used & repaired mobile handset to the customers. The OP has not clarified that the Demo (Display) mobile phone means used & repaired products. Therefore, it is clear that the OP has sold a used & repaired mobile handset in question to the complainant, which clearly amounts to its indulgence into unfair trade practice, apart from remaining deficient in rendering proper service. Thus, it is obvious that the complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony due to the unfair trade practice & deficient act of the OP and has also been forced to enter into unwanted litigation. The complainant, therefore, deserves to be compensated.

 

7]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service have been proved on the part of the OP. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the Opposite Party with direction to the Opposite Party to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the harassment, agony, loss and litigation expenses.

        This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from above relief.      

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

25^th April, 2023             

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER