Punjab

Sangrur

CC/415/2018

Dildar Hussain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Inderjeet Singh Khangura

12 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 415

 Instituted on:   03.10.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     12.04.2021

Dildar Hussain @ Dara S/o Abdul Majid, R/o Mohalla Khatikan inside Sirhandi Gate, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Reliance Retail Ltd. Shed No.77/80, India Corporation Godown, Mankoli Naka Village Dapode, Tehsil Bhiwandi, Distt. Thane Pin-421302 (Imported and marketed by Reliance from CK Telecom (Heyuan) Ltd. Distt. Heyuan, City China Manufacturer) through its Manager.

2.             Reliance Industries Ltd. C-135, Phase I, Industrial Area, Mohali through its Manager 147307.

3.             Reliance Registered Office 3^rd Floor, Court House, LT Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai 400002 through its Manager.

4.             Reliance Retail Ltd. PB-MLKL-IC-01, First Floor, March three Mall, Railway Road, Malerkotla through its Prop. 148023.

             ….Opposite parties 

For the complainant:             :Shri  I.S. Khangura,Adv.              

For the OP No.1&4              :Shri Satnam Singh.

For the OP NO.2&3              :Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:    Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

 

ORDER:   

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

FACTS

1.             Shri Dildar Hussain,  complainant has filed this complaint pleading that the complainant  purchased a mobie phone LYF Water-F-IS-Dual sim 4G volte (Grey 3 GB Ram, 32 GB Rom) SKU; YY-1619-2BYT, ASIN: B-06X168JKH through online from OPs vide order ID: 404-0271587-6518758 on 1.12.2017 for Rs.7541/- .  Further case of the complainant is that after two months from its purchase the mobile set started giving problem of heating issue and sometime network issue and late starting of handset.  As such, the complainant approached OP number 4 on 7.6.2018 and apprised about the problem.  The OP number 4 checked the mobile set and issued job sheet and demanded an amount of Rs.5942/- from the complainant whereas the mobile set in question was under warranty, but the OP refused to repair the same. Though the complainant approached the Ops so many times to get the mobile phone repaired, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to change the mobile set with a new one or to refund the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.7541/- along with interest and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

WRITTEN VERSION

2.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 4, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has based the present complaint on mere conjectures and surmises and has not come with clean hands, that the complainant has not produced any cogent evidence, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant never approached the OP number 4. In fact, on 17.3.2018 the complainant visited OP number 4 for the very first time to report the alleged problem of Over heated in the product. After inspection and verification of the product, OP number 4 noticed that the printed circuit board of the product was not functioning properly.  After replacement of PCBA, the product had been functioning normally, which was demonstrated by DRS of OP number 4 to the complainant.  The product was properly checked by the complainant before taking delivery of the product.  After replacement of the PCBA, the product had been functioning normally, which was demonstrated by DRS to the complainant.  It is further stated that the product was found dead (non functioning) condition and it was liquid logged (damaged by customer).  As such, the amount for the repair of the mobile set has been rightly demanded.  As such, the OPs have prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

3.             Record shows that the OPs number 2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.

EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a mobile phone set from the OPs on 1.12.2017 for Rs.7541/-.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that after two months of its purchase, the mobile set started giving problem of heating, sometime network issue and late starting of handset.  As such, the complainant approached OP number 4 on 7.6.2018 and apprised about the problem, but the OP number 4 refused to set right the problem.  As such, the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

6.             On the other hand, on behalf of the OPs it is pleaded that the mobile set damaged due to the fact that it fell in the water and OP number 4 has got no responsibility for the same.  The learned counsel for the OPs further argued that it was not under warranty.  Lastly, the learned counsel for the Ops has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

7.             To prove this case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-9 affidavit and has deposed as per the complaint.  Ex.C-1 is the memo showing that the value of the mobile set was Rs.7541/-, Ex.C-2 is the product details, Ex.C-3 is also document of mobile, Ex.C-4 is legal notice sent to the Ops, ExC-5 to Ex.C-7 are the postal receipts, Ex.C-8 is letter dated 11.7.2018 and Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12 are the mobile details.

8.             On behalf of the OP number 1 and 4, the learned counsel has produced Ex.OP1&4/1 terms and conditions, Ex.OP1&4/2 customer information slip, Ex.OP1&4/3 to Ex.OP1&4/12 product details of the mobile set and Ex.OP1&4/13 is the affidavit of Vikram Sharma. 

 9.            As per the pleadings, the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 4  for Rs.7541/- on 1.12.2017 and after two months of its purchase, the mobile set started giving problem of over heating and late start etc.  The complainant approached OP number 4 as the mobile set was still under warranty, but the OP number 4 refused to set right the same.  Since the mobile set was purchased by the complainant from Reliance Retail vide bill Ex.C-1 by paying the amount of Rs.7541/- and the mobile set started to give the problem during the warranty period, but the Ops failed to set right the same.  As such, we find it to be a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. To support the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Raghbir Singh versus M/s. Eicher Tractors & others 2010(1) CPC 444 (Punjab State Commission) wherein  the complainant purchased a tractor from OP- Engine of said tractor was defective as it did not take proper load- compressor was also not working properly- tractor became totally unworkable and unrepairable after running for 415 hours. Defect was duly proved from report of experts. Moreover, tractor could not be put to use for want of registration as it could not be taken to the District Transport Officer.  Manufacturing and mechanical defect well proved from evidence on record. Respondents directed to return the price of tractor i.e. Rs.2,18,000/- with 9% interest per annum with compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Complaint allowed with cost of Rs.5000/-.

10.            The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited  M/s. XOLO Care through its Director versus Tarun Sharma 2017(2) CPJ 228 (Punjab State Commission) Mobile set purchased online-manufacturing defect. Hand set replaced. Mobile set again started creating problem. Complaint filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Complaint allowed by Distt. Forum. Appeal against same. Held, it is duty of reputed/established manufacturer to replace such mobile set.  OPs failed to rectify problem in mobile set. Deficiency proved. Order passed by Distt Forum held proper. Hence, affirmed.

11.                    In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to replace the mobile set in question with a new one.  The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.   This order be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        April 12, 2021.

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                  President