BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.651 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:            11.11.2014

                                                   Date of Decision:             19.05.2015

Ranjit Singh son of Balkar Singh, resident of House No.136, Green Enclave Colony, Village & Post Office: DAUN, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Reliance Retail Limited (Formerly Reliance Fresh Limited), Booth No.55, Phase-1, Mohali through its Branch Manager.

2.     Jaina Marketing and Associates, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi through its authorized signatory.

………. Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:     Shri A.K. Maleri, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Sanjeev Pabbi, counsel for OP No.1.

Shri T.S. Sidhu, counsel for OP No.2.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’):

(a)    to replace the mobile handset or in the alternative refund him Rs.9,999/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase.

(b)    to pay him Rs.9,999/- as compensation for  physical harassment.

(c)    to pay Rs.9,999/- as punitive damages for unfair trade practice.

(d)    to pay him Rs.9,999/- as litigation and misc. expenses.

                The complainant’s case is that he  purchased new Karbonn Titanius-X- Dual Sim Android Smart phone for Rs.9,999/- from OP No.1 on 19.08.2014 and the payment was made by him through credit card of HDFC Bank.  United Telelinks (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. a joint venture of OP No.2 gave warranty for the products  of Karbon brand mobile phone, one year for mobile phone/handset and six months for batteries, charger and accessories which commences from the date of  purchase.  The complainant noted some defects in the mobile hand within two months from its purchase and made verbal complaint to OP No.1 who did not pay any heed to the complaint due to which the defected battery also damaged the screen of the phone. The complainant again made complaint to OP No.1 for replacement/repair of the screen but it washed its hands from repairs/replacement. The mobile handset is still within the period of warranty. Non repair/replacement of the mobile handset is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs for which the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             OP No.1 in the written statement has pleaded that it is not liable for any manufactured defect in the handset. OP No.1 has been authorized by OP No.2 to sell its products. OP No.2 is responsible for all the defects in the products manufactured by it. It has set up its service centers in various cities including Mohali. The package of mobile handset manufactured/marketed by OP No.2 contains a user manual/handbook which provides guidelines regarding product details, usage, after sale services, list of service centers, contact details of customer care centers etc.  There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  Complainant has not produced any material before the Forum that the handset was defective.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.2 in its separate written statement has pleaded that it provides warranty under normal use and service.  The complainant thoroughly checked the mobile handset before its purchase.  The complainant never approached the service center for repair of the handset.  No legal notice has been received by it from the complainant.  The handset was defected due to mishandling from the complainant.  Denying any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset or deficiency in service on its part, OP No.2 has also sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

4.             Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-2.

5.             Evidence of OP No.1 consists of affidavit of Gaurav Narang, is Store Manager Ex.OP-1/1.

6.             Evidence of OP No.2 consists of affidavit of Ajay Kumar, its authorized representative Ex.OP-2/1.

7.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through their written arguments.

8.             The purchase of the mobile hand set is not disputed. As per the complainant after two months of purchase of he had noticed some defect in the battery of the hand set and verbally approached OP No.1 to remove the defects but OP No.1 did not provide him free after sale service as the mobile hand set is out of warranty. As per the complainant he has approached OPs to get the defect of the battery of the hand set removed but the OPs have not provided him free after sale service.  We have not found any job card or the details of the complaints made by the complainant to the OPs by the complainant on record whereas as per OP No.2 the complainant was well within his rights to approach the service centre as per the details provided in the user manual within the warranty period.

9.             The limited issue for us to determine is whether the mobile hand set was within the warranty period or not. As per Ex.C-2 warranty card the mobile hand set was carrying a warranty of one year and six months for batteries, charger and accessories. Admittedly the mobile hand set was purchased on 19.08.2014. Thus the warranty for the hand set was to expire on 18.08.2015 and for the battery, charger etc. it was 18.08.2015. The complainant has not shown any document to show whether he has approached the OPs during the subsistence of warranty governing the battery, because as per the complainant the issue was of defective battery and screen. In the absence of any documentary evidence in this regard, the version of the complainant having visited the OPs personally remained doubtful.  So much so during the course of proceedings the handset was found in the possession of the complainant and the complainant was directed to approach the service centre to get the necessary repairs effected. The OPs have agreed to effect the necessary repairs and replace the battery and repaired the touch panel but still the complainant has not approached the OPs to collect the repaired mobile hand set. The conduct of the complainant per se shows that he has not approached the OPs within the warranty period and now after expiry of warranty the OPs are well within their rights to charge the amount for replacement of battery and repair of touch screen.

10.            From the ongoing discussion, it has emerged that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service. Thus the complaint being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

May 19, 2015.          

                                (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member