BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.371 of 2016

Date of Instt. 29.08.2016

Date of Decision: 27.06.2017

Manoj Kumar Age 34 years, S/o Sh. Balwinder Kumar, Vill. Gannapind, PO Haripur Khalsa, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar Mobile No.9781225350 ..........Complainant

Versus

1. Reliance Retail Ltd., Property No.B-2-1600, JK Electronics, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana Through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative.

2. Shree Communications, Shop No.2, GS Bajwa Complex, Opp. Friend Bakery, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar. Through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.

3. Bright Point India Private Limited, First Floor, Plot No.G-9, Block B-1, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 Through its Director/Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

OP No.1 and 3 exparte.

Sh. Akash Batra, Authorized Representative of OP No.2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint presented by complainant Manoj Kumar, wherein alleged that on 04.11.2015, the complainant purchased a mobile handset make HTC One E9S bearing IMEI No.359476060648212 from OP No.1. That one year warranty was given for the above said mobile handset. Within warranty period, in the month of April 2016, the display/screen of the said mobile handset cracked due to fell down from bed of one feet height. The friends and relatives of the complainant saw the cracked display and told the complainant that there might be some manufacturing defect or inferior quality display fitted in the mobile handset which caused breakage otherwise, the display should had not been cracked.

2. That the complainant brought the above defect into the notice of the OP No.1, who directed the complainant to contact their authorized service centre/OP No.2, located at Jalandhar. In the same month April, 2016, the complainant approached the OP No.2 and handed over the defective/cracked display mobile handset to OP No.2, who received the handset from complainant vide their Job Sheet No.ATQ0030009391 and told the complainant to collect it after ten days. When after ten days the complainant went to take the handset, the OP No.2 demanded Rs.6515/- from complainant for replacement of display, which the complainant paid. The OP No.2 to give assurance to the complainant that display replaced on cash payment is original one and there shall be no problem of colour or any other defect. That after two months from the replacement of display its colour faded, the complainant again went to OP No.2 for rectification of colour defect. The OP No.2 told the complainant that they have another service centre at Model Town, Jalandhar who would rectify the colour fade defect and advised to contact them. As per advise of OP No.2, the complainant contacted the service centre at Model Town, Jalandhar and shown the faded colour defect appeared in the screen/display of handset. They demanded Rs.8300/- for replacement of display. An official of the said service centre told the complainant that inferior and duplicate quality display has been installed in the mobile handset by the OP No.2 which caused colour faded in screen. The complainant again approached the OP No.2 and told them regarding installation of inferior and duplicate quality screen, the colour faded and requested to replace the screen/display free of cost but the OP refused to replace the display/screen saying that its warranty of three months has lapsed whereas no such word was told to complainant at the time of receipt of the payment.

3. That the OP No.2 has already taken Rs.6515/- from complainant for replacement of display and now they again demanded Rs.8300/- for same purpose through their other service centre which tantamount of unfair trade practice. The OP No.2 has conducted negligence and deficiency in service and installed the inferior and fake quality display in the mobile handset which caused fade of colour within short time. Due to manufacturing defect and inferior quality display, installed by OPs, has cracked and after that the OP No.2 replaced the said display with a duplicate/fake quality display and as such the instant complaint filed with the prayer that OP No.2 and 3 be directed to replace the defective display/screen of mobile handset free of cost as they have already taken Rs.6515/- for replacement of display and in the alternative to replace the handset with new one with fresh warranty and refund Rs.6515/-, taken by OP No.2 and refund the cost of mobile handset as per bill Rs.22,297/- and to give the cost of litigation Rs.3300/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental tension and harassment to complainant.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties but despite service OP No.1 and 3 did not come present and ultimately OP No.1 and 3 were proceeded against exparte. Whereas OP No.2 appeared himself and filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by complainant against OP No.2 is false, vogue, fabricated and vexatious and the same is liable to be dismissed and further admitted that on 10.05.2016, the complainant came to OP No.2 for installation of new display. On his request he got replaced the display with new one from the OP No.3 for which Rs.6515/- were charged against breakage. The set was out of warranty. At the time of taking the delivery, the complainant checked the display and was satisfied. After four months, he broken the display of said mobile handset for which he is not responsible. Moreover the OP No.2 has closed their service centre and lastly prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and further prayed that the complaint of the complainant may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove his case, complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith some documents Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, OP No.2 tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the complainant as well as authorized agent of OP No.2, in person and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. In order to establish that the complainant purchased a mobile handset make HTC from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.22,297/- and bill of the mobile handset is proved on the file Ex.C1 and Warranty Card Ex.C2 and copy of the receipt whereby make a payment of Rs.6515/- to OP No.2 for replacing the screen, the copy of receipt is Ex.C3.

9. On the other hand, the OP No.2 has categorically mentioned in his affidavit as well as in his reply that the screen of the mobile handset was broken in condition and same was replaced on payment basis because any breakage does not cover within the warranty and accordingly the complainant willingly paid a sum of Rs.6515/- and then after four months of the replacement, installation of the display then complainant again came with a broken display of the said mobile set but at that time, the OP No.2 closed the service centre and as such he was asked to go to other service centre, situated at Model Town, Jalandhar.

10. If we analyze the entire facts as discussed above, then we can say easily without any hesitation that the display of the mobile handset of the complainant was broken due to fall from the bed as alleged by the complainant himself in the complaint and it is cardinal principle of law that if there is any breakage in the product due to fault of the purchaser then the same will not be covered, within the warranty period and on both the occasions, there is a breakage of the display which is due to mishandling of the mobile set and therefore the same is not covered under the warranty and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for get installed a new screen of the mobile set free of cost rather he can get it changed after making a payment of the actually price of the said screen but for that purpose the complainant is not ready. Furthermore, the complainant has not brought on the file any expert/technical evidence to establish that whether there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile set or the screen is broken one. At the second occasion, for that purpose, the complainant has to deposit the said mobile set with the service centre of the company and got issued the job sheet with the remarks whether there is any breakage or manufacturing defect but no such evidence has come on the file. So, in the absence of any such type of evidence, we cannot construe that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile set. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Thus, the complaint is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

27.06.2017 Member President