Haryana

Karnal

CC/427/2017

Naresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Kavinder Singh

06 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No.427 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 20.12.2017

                                                         Date of decision:06.12.2018

                                                                                       

Naresh Kumar son of Shri Radhe Shyam resident of House no.25, Gali no.10, Durga Colony, Karnal.                                                                                                                                                                                                                           …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. Reliance Retail Ltd. 3^rd floor, B wing Fortune Building, Bharat Nagar, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai, Maharashtra, through its authorized signatory.

2. LYF Service Center, SCO 8, Sector 14, HUDA Market, near Rahul Honda Agency, Karnal through its authorized signatory.

3. Satinder Mobiles, Phoosgarh Road, Vikas Nagar, Karnal through its authorized signatory/proprietor.

    …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

         

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.  

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present   Shri Kawinder Singh Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri R.K.Gonder Advocate for OPs no.1 and 2.

                   OP no.3 given up.

                  

                   (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 wind 7S mobile on 16.02.2017 for an amount of Rs.5600/-, vide bill no.402 from OP no.3 having IMEI no.911510855758443 and 911510856758442  and at the time of purchase, the complainant was assured that the company has given the warranty for the period of 2 years i.e. one year as compulsory and one year as extended warranty. The said mobile is of defective quality and is having manufacturing defect. The complainant used to connect the original charger with the said mobile. After about one month of the purchase of said mobile, the complainant started facing problems of overheating, hanging, battery not charging properly and taking excess time upto 8/9 hours, touch problem etc. and in this regard, in the month of April, 2017. The complainant approached the OP no.2 the service centre of the OP no.1, where the mobile was checked and was returned after about two hours to the complainant after checking and the concerned official of the OP no.2 had assured the complainant that in future the complainant will not face the aforesaid problems again. In the month of November, 2017 the mobile set again occurred the same problems of overheating and not charge of mobile upto 8/9 hours, touch problem, hanging of mobile, automatically switch off and down. On 1.12.2017 while complainant received a call, the said handset started overheating like to blast. Suddenly it passed current and complainant afraid of blat of the unit and  damaged of his ear/skin and due to this reason, the said mobile set was slipped and its screen was broken towards lower portion. On 2.1.2.2017 complainant approached the OP no.2 and narrated all the matter. The concerned official checked the mobile and demanded Rs.1760/- for repair of the mobile set. Complainant stated that the mobile set was within warranty period and so he need not to pay the charge so demanded. But OP no.2 refused to repair the same free of costs and misbehaved with him. Thereafter, on 4.12.2017 the complainant made online complaint to e-mail of OP no.1 and narrated all the facts. In reply OP no.1 stated that the complainant have to get the said unit repaired on chargeable basis from service centre. In this way OPs completely refused to repair the mobile set of the complainant which is still under the warranty period. There is 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. OPs no.1 and appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction. On merits it is pleaded that OP no.1 is not the manufacturer of the disputed product. OP no.1 has imported the product and sold and distributed in India thorough its distribution channel. OP no.1 is the authorized service centre for LYF brand mobile devices, which provide after sales service subject to warranty terms and conditions. It is further pleaded that on 29.4.2017 complainant visited OP no.2 to report the problem of ‘hanging’ in the product, for which complainant filled and completed customer information slip. Thereafter, OP no.2 sorted out the hanging problem with updating the software and returned the handset. The second time complainant again visited the service centre on 2.12.2017. At the time of Entry Level scanning, DRS found that that touch of the handset is in broken condition so it does not cover warranty. Same was update to the customer there and then. The service team further attended the complainant and informed him the estimate. The complainant denied and said its under warranty and went back with the handset. The screen of the handset was broken and was figured at the ELS test. As the product was found in warranty void state, hence the product was warranty void as per clause 5 of warranty T&C. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs no.1 and 2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.3 given up by the complainant, vide his statement dated 19.7.2018.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 4.10.2018.

5.             On the other hand, OPs no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Parveen Pruthi Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on 21.11.2018.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Wind 7S mobile amounting to Rs.5600/- on 16.02.2017, vide bill no.402 from OP no.3. At the time of purchasing the unit the complainant was assured that the company has given the warranty for the period of 2 year. After about one month of the purchase of said unit, the complainant started facing problems of overheating, hanging, battery not charging properly and taking excess time up to 8/9 hours, touch problem etc. and in this regard the complainant approached the OP no.2 in the month of April, 2017. Concerned official of OP no.2 checked the mobile and returned it after about 2 hours and assured that in future the complainant will not face the aforesaid problems again. Again in the month of November, 2017 the unit again started giving same problems and started switching on and off automatically. On 1.12.2017 the complainant attended a call on the said unit, the said unit become very hot and was like to blast. Suddenly it passed current and complainant afraid of blast o f the said unit and damage of his ear/skin, due to this reason the said unit slipped and its screen was broken towards the lower portion of it. On 2.12.2017 the complainant approached the OP no.2 with the aforesaid problems. The concerned official straightway said that the complainant have to pay Rs.1760/- to the company, over which the complainant stated that the said unit is in warranty period so he need not to pay any charges. The engineer namely Shri Sravjeet Singh misbehaved and directly said that nothing will be done until and unless the complainant paid the said charges. On 4.12.2017, the complainant  made an online complaint to e-mail of OP no.1 and reply was received by the complainant on 5.12.2017 in which it was stated that the complainant have to get the said unit repaired on chargeable basis from the service centre. The OPs completely refused to repair the said unit which is still under warranty period. The said unit is kept dead at the complainant’s house and is of no use, due to which the complainant is facing a lot of problems in official and personal life. Hence he prayed for allow the complaint with compensation.

8.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs is that the complainant had mislead the facts qua the warranty period. In fact the standard warranty on the hands free is extended for the period of 3 months from the date of original retail purpose. Extended warranty on the charger and battery on the unit is extended for the period of 6 months from the date of original retail purpose. Standard warranty on the unit (excluded battery, charger, USB cable and hands free) is extended for a period of 12 months. On 29.04.2017, after 9.5 months from purchasing the unit, the complainant visited the OP no.2 to report the alleged problem. After inspection and verification of the product, DRS (service engineer) did not find any hardware related problem in the unit. There is no manufacturing defect in unit and prayed for dismiss the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, complainant purchased wind 7S mobile on 16.02.2017 for an amount of Rs.5600/- from the OPs. After about 1 month of the purchase of said unit, the complainant facing problems of overheating, hanging battery not charging properly and taking excess time upto 8/9 hours, touch problem etc. and in this regard the complainant approached the OP no.2 in the month of April, 2017. As per the complainant, he purchased a new mobile and now the said unit is not required by the complainant. The counsel for the complainant argued that now the defected unit is lying with the OP no.2. The complainant made many complaints to rectify the defect of said unit but OPs failed to repair the said unit.  In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that OPs are deficient in service.

10.            As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs no.1 and 2 to replace the mobile set in question of the complainant with new one of the same value, same make and model which was purchased by the complainant. However, it is hereby made clear that if the set of the same make and model is not available with the OPs no.1 and 2 then they will return the cost of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.5600/- to the complainant.  We further direct the OPs no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.4000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 06.12.2018

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                        Member                       Member