Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/447/2016

Sunil Gandhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Devi Sant Adv.

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	447 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	27.6.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	15..12.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil Gandhi S/o Sh. Om Parkash Gandhi R/o H. No. 348 phase-3A, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1. Reliance retail Ltd. Digital Xpress Mini SCO 101, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh 160 036 through its Manager.

 

2.  Samsung Service Centre SCO 3009-10, Sector 22D, Chandigarh 160 022, through its service Manager.

 

3.  Samsung India Electronics Ltd. 20^th to 24^th floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 202 through its M.D.

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. Devi Sant Singh, Adv.

 

For OP No.1             :     Sh. Sanjeev Pabbi, Adv.

 

For OP No.2&3           :     Ms. Neeru, proxy counsel for Sh. Puneet                           Tuli, Adv. 

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant purchased one  mobile SamsungJ7 from OP No.1 against the price of Rs.14,250/- on 25.3.2016 for gifting the same to his son. OP No.1 had also gave full assurance to the complainant to co-operate in case there is any problem/defect in the mobile including replacement of the same.   It is pleaded that on 28.2.2016  the handset started giving problem then the complainant visited OP No.1  as it gave  assurance  of replacement of the handset in case there is manufacturing defect.  It is alleged that the complainant and his son visited OP No.1 many a times but only on 8.4.2016 OP NO.1 asked the complainant to visit Samsung care centre in sector 22D which exhausted replaced warranty of 7 days.  The complainant visited there on the same day and met MR. Vijay Kumar Engineer who after updating the software could not remove the defect and confirmed it having manufacturing defect. It is further pleaded that the son of the complainant refused to take the repaired mobile handset.  The complainant met the Service Manager and requested him for replacement of the mobile but nothing fruitful came out. It further pleaded that OP No.1 kept  the complainant in darkness regarding replacement warranty of 7 days.  The complainant made several communications with the OPs regarding replacement of the handset in question but to no avail. Ultimately the complainant served a legal notice to OP No.1 but all in vain. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

 

2.     The Opposite Party No.1 in its reply stated that the complaint is not maintainable against it as it is a seller of various electronic items of many manufacturers, at its stores.  It is asserted that OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the Samsung phone who being manufacturer is completely responsible for any defect in its product which from any stretch of imagination cannot be fastened upon the retailer i.e. OP No.1    It is the manufacturer who provides warranty on the product in question. The answering OP is neither the  manufacturer nor contributes to the process of manufacturing at any stage.   The answering OP has no role after sales of any product and it is always taken care by the service centre/manufacturer of the product. Denying all other allegations in the complaint it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3.     Opposite Parties No.2&3 in their joint reply stated that the mobile in question was within warranty and as per the warranty terms and conditions the same would be repaired free of cost.  The complainant was repeatedly requested to grant permission to repair the mobile in question but the complainant has chosen not to get the same repaired. As such the answering Ops cannot be held liable for the same.  It is averred that the complainant did not bring the mobile set for purpose replacement to the service centre within a period of seven days warranty replacement period provided by the OPs.. It is further averred that the complainant  is only setting stories in order to mislead this court.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Parties made in their respective replies.
5.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7.     The grouse of the complainant is that he reported the matter regarding defect in the handset in question to the OPs and was visiting the OPs for the replacement of the same but they delayed the matter. Further alleged that the Service Manager of the OPs showed his inability to replace the mobile handset, stating that there is 7 days replacement warranty; which is over by now. The complainant has further alleged that the handset in question is having inherent manufacturing defect and replacement thereof is only the appropriate relief.
8.     On the contrary, OP No.1 denied all the allegations of the complainant and claimed that it timely referred him to the service centre and denied any liability on its part stating that it is the duty of the manufacturer only to replace the said handset in case it is found that it contains an inherent manufacturing defect.
9.     On the other hand OPs NO.2&3 submitted that they offered repair of the handset in question but the complainant himself is reluctant to get it rectified. They further submitted that they are still ready to make necessary rectification in case the complainant deposit the same with their authorized service centre.
10.     After going through the record, it is revealed that admittedly the complainant purchased the handset in question on 25.3.2016. It is not disputed that the same got defective within 10-15 days of its purchase, which forced the complainant to visit the service centre for its replacement.  

 

11.     The record reveals that the complainant himself has refused to go further with the repairs of the set in question as his son has refused to accept the repaired mobile as it was gifted to him by his father. Thus refusal of the complainant cannot change the course of things as the mobile having the manufacturing warranty if develops any snag needs to be verified and rectified initially and only in case when the set is having manufacturing defect or inherent defect leading to repeated repairs warrants the replacement or refund.
12.     Since the set in question is under warranty and the OPs are inclined to do the repairs as and when it is submitted for repairs by the complainant, so we are restrained to grant the relief claimed by the complainant in his complaint i.e. the replacement or the refund of the invoice price of the set in question.  
13.     For the reasons recorded above, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the OPs as under:-

1. To rectify the defect in the set in question within 15 days of the deposit of the set for repairs by the complainant failing which they shall refund the price of the handset in question.  

        

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within specified period as above, failing which they shall be liable to refund the price of the handset in question with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of its purchase till realization.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

15.12.2016

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER