Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/146/2022

SHUBHAM PANDEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE RETAIL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No.146/22

 

 

In the matter of:

	Shubham Pandey, S/o J.P Pandey, R/o Y-37, Adarsh Enclave, Prem Nagar 2 Kirari, Delhi 110086	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.         3.	Reliance Retail Ltd., RCP 14 (TC 23), Phase 4, B- Block, 3rd Floor, C4/130, Twane Belapur Road, Gansoli, Navi Mumbai 400701   Reliance Retail Ltd., Yaduvanshi Bhawan, Plot No. 222B Nangloi Jat, Main Najafgarh Road, New Delhi 110041   Sasta Telecom C-20, Hind Vihar, Prem Nagar III, Kirari Delhi 110086	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

05.06.2018 28.04.2023 13.09.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 30.06.2017, Complainant had purchased a mobile LYF-Water 1 from Opposite Party No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 6,850/-. It is his case that the said mobile phone was not working properly from the very first day of purchase and was having problem of hanging and overheating. It is his case that in the first week of July 2017, Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 2 regarding the problem in the said mobile phone. It is his case that after inspection of the said mobile phone Opposite Parties stated that there was some software problem and needed to upgrade the software but after up gradation the software, the said mobile phone was not working properly. It is his case that again in the month of August 2017 Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 2 regarding the same problem in the phone. It is his case that after inspection of the said mobile phone the engineer of Opposite Party No. 2 stated that there was some inherent problem which could not be rectified through up gradation of software and requested to deposit the defective mobile set with the assurance for replacement the defective mobile set with a new mobile set. Thereafter, Complainant deposited the said mobile set for replacement but Opposite Party No. 2 returned the said defective mobile set and shown inability in replacing it with a new one. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to refund the amount i.e. Rs. 6,850/- being the cost of the mobile set along with 18 % interest p.a. from the date of purchase till realization and      Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment. Complainant also prayed for the amount of Rs. 7,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2

2. Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its common written statement. It is stated that the complaint is false. It is stated that on 17.11.2017 i.e. after about 04 months of purchasing the mobile phone, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party No. 2 for the first time. After inspection of the mobile phone it was found that the said mobile phone was not charged for a long period and as a result thereof it was dead. The DRS of the Opposite Party No. 2 charged the mobile phone and after inspection it was found that there was no problem in the said mobile phone. The DRS of the Opposite Party No. 2 upgraded the software. The mobile phone was returned to the Complainant on the same day and in this regard job sheet no. 8012310585 was issued to the Complainant. Thereafter, on 31.03.2018, Complainant again visited Opposite Party No. 2 with the alleged problem of LCD blank. After inspection it was noticed by the Service Engineer that there was dust inside the product. The DRS of the Opposite Party No. 2 cleaned the product and re-assembled the product. It was found that the product was working properly and this was demonstrated and checked by the Complainant before taking the delivery. On the said date job sheet no. 8010041650 was issued to the Complainant. It is stated that thereafter the Complainant never reported any complaint regarding the said mobile phone. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2

5. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Ms. Shruti Chandra, wherein, she has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2.  We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No.  2. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a mobile phone on 30.06.2017. It is his case that since the date of purchase of the mobile phone it was not working properly as there was some inherent/manufacturing defect in the said mobile phone. It is his case that he approached the Opposite Party No. 2 for repair/change of the mobile phone but nothing was done. On the other hand the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 is that the Complainant after purchasing the mobile phone first time visited the service centre of Opposite Party No. 2 after about 4 months. It was found that the mobile phone was not charged for a long time and on account of this the mobile phone was dead. After charging the mobile phone it started working properly. As per the case of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 thereafter, on 31.03.2018, Complainant visited the service centre of Opposite Party No. 2 and its engineer found that there was dust in the mobile set. The mobile phone was cleaned and re-assembled and thereafter it was working properly. The case of the Complainant is that there is some inherent/manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. He has not led any evidence to prove this fact. On the other hand the case the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 is that the mobile phone was working properly and the Complainant had visited only twice at the service centre of the Opposite Party    No. 2. Both the times job sheet was issued to the Complainant. The Complainant has not denied or controverted the issuance of the job sheet to him. The job sheet dated 17.11.2017 shows that the Complainant has received the mobile phone after his satisfaction and it also bears his signature. The job sheet dated 31.03.2018 also shows that the Complainant has received the mobile phone after his satisfaction and it also bears his signature.
7. Therefore, in view of the above job sheets it is prove that the mobile phone was working properly and it was repaired to the satisfaction of the Complainant. On the other hand the Complainant has not led any evidence that the mobile phone has having any defect and that it was not working properly.
8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
9. Order announced on 13.09.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)