| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.314 of 03-11-2017 Decided on 15-05-2019 Sukhveer Singh aged about 38 years S/o Gulzar Singh S/o Hazura Singh R/o Village Maiserkhana, Tehsil Maur, District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., C-135, Industrial Area, Phase VIII, Mohali-160071, Punjab; through its Authorized Person. 2.Digital Mobile Shopee, Sargam Cinema Complex Near Public Library, Bathinda, through its Proprietor. 3.Reliance Retail Limited, Regd. Office: 3rd Floor, Court House, LT Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-4000021, through its Authorized Person. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Manisha, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.S.S Gill, Advocate. For opposite party Nos.1 & 3: Sh.W.S Khurmi, Advocate. For opposite party No.2: Sh.Vikas Singla, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Sukhveer Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Reliance LYF mobile handset for Rs.6500/- vide invoice dated 14.3.2017 from opposite party No.2, manufactured by opposite party No.1 with one year warranty. It is alleged that on 13.9.2017, the battery of the mobile handset got burst thereby causing damage. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 and asked it to replace the mobile handset with new one as there is manufacturing defect in it, but opposite parties put off the matter on one or other pretest and refused to entertain the complaint. It is also alleged that due to act and conduct of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered from physical and mental agony and he could not use the mobile handset. For these sufferings, he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.5500/- in addition to replacement of the defective mobile handset with new one or refund of its price i.e. Rs.6500/- with interest. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing their separate written version. In the written version, opposite party No.1 has raised the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. It is based on mere conjectures and surmises. The complainant has failed to bring on record any cogent and coherent evidence to further averments. No cause-of-action has accrued to him against opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 is neither manufacturer, distributor nor authorized service centre for the disputed product. There is no privity of contract between opposite party No.1 and complainant. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary parties and lastly, this Forum has no jurisdiction as the warranty card accompanying with the product provides for exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Mumbai. On merits, all the averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. In the written version, opposite party No.2 has raised the legal objections that the complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file the complaint. The complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and lastly, the complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile handset for Rs.6500/- on 14.3.2017. The warranty was by company only. This fact is admitted by the complainant at the time of purchase of mobile handset. All his other averments are denied. It is relevant to mention that opposite party No.3 was subsequently impleaded as party being service centre. In the written version, opposite party No.3 has also raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is based on mere conjectures and surmises. The complainant has failed to bring on record any cogent and coherent evidence. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary parties and lastly, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. On merits, it is pleaded that opposite party No.3 has imported and sold the product and distributed in India through its distribution channel. There is no privity of contract between opposite party No.1 and complainant. The allegations relating to alleged problem in battery on 13.9.2017 are denied. It is further unfolded that the complainant visited opposite party No.3 for the very first time on 12.9.2017 to report the problem of 'Dead, Battery Issue'. He filled and completed customer information slip made available by LYF Service Centre. After depositing the product, opposite party No.3 created job sheet bearing No.8011242678. After inspection and verification of the product, DRS of opposite party No.3 found that the battery FPCB connector of the product was broken. DRS immediately demonstrated the broken battery FPCB connector of the product to the complainant and informed him that this damage is customer induced damage. Opposite party No.3 did not find any signs of battery burst as alleged by the complainant. The product was found in customer induced damage state. It was warranty void as per Clause 5 of terms and conditions of warranty extended with the product. As such, service center informed the complainant that he will have to bear the cost of replacement of parts of the product and relevant repair charges. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.3 provided estimate of repair to the complainant, but he refused to accept the fact that the product is in customer induced damage state and also refused to make any payment to carry out repairs to the product and insisted for free of cost repairs. Opposite party No.3 also made remark on the job sheet. The complainant took back the product on the same day i.e. 12.9.2017 from opposite party No.3 and he did not come back to report the complaint of defects in the product, with clean hands. Warranty is subject to its terms and conditions as contained in the warranty card accompanying with the product. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavits dated 1.2.2018 and 17.12.2018, (Ex.C1); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.C2); photocopy of photographs, (Ex.C3) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party Nos.1 and 3 has tendered into evidence affidavits of Vikram Sharma dated 27.3.2018 and 23.1.2019, (Ex.OP1/1 and Ex.OP3/1); photocopy of photographs, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopies of limited warranty terms and conditions, (Ex.OP1/3 and Ex.OP3/2); photocopies of warranty terms and conditions photographs, (Ex.OP1/4 to Ex.OP1/8); photocopies of customer information slip, (Ex.OP1/9 and Ex.OP3/3); photocopies of job sheet, (Ex.OP1/10 and Ex.OP3/4); printouts of photographs, (Ex.OP1/11 and Ex.OP1/12); photocopies of mobile handset, (Ex.OP3/5 and Ex.OP3/6) and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Kuldeep Singh dated 20.3.2018, (Ex.OP2/1) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased mobile handset in question from opposite party No.2. It is also not disputed that opposite party No.3 has imported the products and sold them in India through its distribution channel. It is also not disputed that as per complainant, there was any problem in the mobile handset. Opposite party No.3 has pleaded that the complainant reported the problem on 12.9.2017 and it was found customer induced damage. Of-course, opposite party No.3 has produced on record copy of customer information slip, (Ex.OP3/3) to prove that the complainant reported the issues of 'dead, battery issue' on 12.9.2017. It has also placed on record copy of job sheet, (Ex.OP3/4) wherein it has mentioned estimate of Rs.960/- and it is remarked that estimate is not approved and FPCB broken, but at the bottom, it is mentioned that product is in satisfactory working condition. Therefore, this job sheet contains contradictory remarks. There is no reference that there is customer induced damage. Counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 3 has submitted that the complainant got his mobile handset serviced from some unauthorized service centre, which made the warranty void. The complaint was reported to opposite party No.3 on 12.9.2017. The product was purchased on 14.3.2017. Therefore, reported defect was within period of 6 months i.e. certainly within warranty period. When the complainant was having facility of free services from opposite parties under warranty terms and conditions ,he was not having any reason for opting services from any other source. Moreover there is no other evidence to prove that damage to the product was due to customer induced damage. The complainant has also alleged that the mobile handset burst on 13.9.2017. It was also within warranty period. As such, opposite party No.3 was under obligation to do needful to remove defect and made the mobile handset in working condition. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation and compensation against opposite party No.3 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Opposite party No.3 is directed to do needful to remove defect and made the mobile handset in working condition. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 15-05-2019 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Manisha) Member
| |
