Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/53

Varun Kakkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Dharampal, Adv

01 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  53 of 07.09.2017

                                 Date of decision                    :      01.03.2018

 

Varun Kakkar, son of Sh. Harjit Kakkar, resident of House No.503, Mira Bhai Chownk, Ropar, Teshil and District Ropar 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Reliance Retail Limited, 5 PTC Industrial Area, Thane Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai

2. Service Centre Lyf SCO No.87/88, Behind Piccadily Cinema, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 

3. Saini Communication Mobile Repair and Institute, Gurdwara Shish Mahal Road, Kiratpur Sahib, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar 

                                                                               ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.Dharampal, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

Sh. Gagandeep Arora, Advocate. counsel for O.Ps.  

 

ORDER         

               

Sh. Varun Kakkar through his counsel has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

 

i)       To replace the mobile set or refund the amount of set along with interest 18% per annum 

ii)      To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant

iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- as with litigation expenses

iv)     Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and appropriate in the circumstances 

2.                    The brief facts of the case are that on 10.09.2016, the complainant purchased a mobile set, model Lyf-wmd 2, having IMEI No.911498800732715, manufactured by O.P. No.1  from O.P. No.3 for Rs.6500/-. After few days of its purchase, it started hanged, immediately, he approached to the O.P. No.3 and it suggest to reset the mobile set but the problem did not resolve even after resetting the same. The O.P. No.3, thereafter, suggested him to get the mobile set checked from O.P. No.2. He approached O.P. No.2 service centre who repaired the mobile set and handed over the same to him on very next day and he again approached O.P. No.2 who again got is repaired and asked him that now defect developed in the mother board of mobile, which is not under warranty and it is too costly equal to the price of the mobile and handed over the mobile set to him. It is further stated that he approached to the O.P. no.3, who took the mobile set from him to get it repaired from O.P. No.2. In the first week of August O.P. No.3 returned the mobile set to him with the assurance that it will not give any defect in future, but the mobile set again started giving problem and he again approached O.Ps. No.2 & 3 personally as well as telephonically but they kept on making excuse on one pretext or other in order to repair or replace the mobile set. Hence, this complaint.

3.          On being put to the notice, the learned counsel for the O.Ps No.1 to 3 have filed written version taking preliminary objections: that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has failed to bring on record any cogent and coherent evidence; that the complainant has intentionally and/or erroneously referred the authorized service centre for LYF brand mobile devices located at Chandigarh; that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction. On merits, it is submitted that OP No.1 is not the manufacturer of the product. It has imported the product and sold and distributed in India through its distribution channel. Complainant should be put to strict proof to prove the factum of his averments. Complainant approaching O.P. No.3 who suggested complainant to reset the product and O.P. No.3 suggested complainant to approach O.P. No.2 pertain to a matter within exclusive knowledge of complainant. Complainant visited O.P. No.2 for the very first time on 14.6.2017 to report the alleged problem of hanging and heating the product, for which complainant filled and completed customer information slip made available by O.P. No.2. After completing and signing the customer information slip, complainant deposited the product along with customer information slip with the O.P. No.2. After depositing the product by complainant, OP No.2 created a job sheet bearing No.8009761315. After inspection and verification of the product, O.P. No.2 did not find any hardware related issue in the product. O.P. No.2 resolve the functional issue, updated software of the product. After updating the software, the product has been functioning normally. Complainant  insisted for replacement of the product. O.P. No.2 explained to the complainant that replacement/repair, if any, of the product is governed by the terms and conditions of the warranty extended on the product, however, the complainant insisted for replacement of the product. O.P. No.2 refused to replace the product beyond warranty terms and conditions, complainant took back the product on the same day from the O.P. No.2, for which complainant signed and acknowledged job sheet bearing No.8009761315. After collecting the product on 14.6.2017, complainant did not report any further complaint in respect of the product with any of the answering O.Ps. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.

4.          On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.C6 along with documents bill dated 10.09.2016, Ex.C1, Legal notice dated 14.8.2017 Ex.C2,  Postal receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, Copy of Job Sheets Ex.C7 & Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. has tendered affidavit of Sh. Vikram Sharma, Authorized signatory of Reliance Retail Limited Ex.OP1, Copy of Limited Warranty terms and conditions Ex.OP2, Copy of Customer Information Slip Ex.OP3, Copy of Job Sheet Ex.OP4, Copy of Letter dated 08.09.2017 Ex.OP5, Copy of Receipt Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence .

5.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.       Complainant counsel Sh. Dharampal, argued that on 10.09.2016, Varun Kakkar purchased mobile set making LYF Wmd 2 manufactured by O.P. No.1 from OP. No.3 for a sum of Rs.8500/- against cash. After purchase the mobile set started creating trouble and it was got checked up from OP No.2.  After repair, O.P. No.2 returned the mobile set and on the very next day, the mobile set started again trouble and despite the fact requesting the O.Ps. many time to repair or to replace but O.Ps. did not take any action/response. On filing the complaint, the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of the O.Ps. The complaint be allowed and either O.Ps. be directed for necessary repair or replace of mobile set or refund the amount with interest.

7.          Learned counsel for the O.Ps. Sh. Gagandeep Arora, argued that so for the sale purchase of the mobile set is concerned i.e. admitted, but complainant is unable to prove the deficiency on the part of the O.Ps. As the complainant approached to the O.P. No.2 and after necessary repair the set was returned. Thereafter no complaint. It gives worth to the version that the mobile set purchased is OK. The evidence led by the complainant is inadequate to prove the deficiency. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint. So for the point whether complainant is the consumer and it is a consumer dispute not disputed by both the parties. Vide Ex.C1, complainant purchased the mobile set for Rs.8500/- from the O.P. No.3 manufactured by O.P. No.1. This receipt is admitted by the OPs. Thereafter complainant sent legal notice to the O.Ps. dated 14.8.2017 qua the functioning of the mobile set and the postal receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C5, besides this, Ex.C7 & Ex.C8 dated 10.10.2017 and 22.11.2017 are the job sheets. To rebut the complainant version, O.Ps placed on file warranty terms and conditions Ex.OP2, Customer Information Slip Ex.OP3, Job Sheet Ex.OP4, Reply to the legal notice Ex.OP5 and tendered affidavit of Ex.C1.

8.       To narrow down the controversy, the complainant is duty bound to prove deficiency on the part of the O.Ps. O.P. No.2 is the care centre to whom the complainant opposed and issued the job sheet Ex.C7 & Ex.C8 these are dated 10.10.2017 and 22.11.2017. At the same time O.Ps. tendered Ex.OP5 dated 08.09.2017 which is qua the legal notice then Ex.OP4 relating to job sheet and Ex.OP3 which is customer information slip and date of request of complainant qua the repair/functioning is dated 14.6.2017. After appreciating the documentary evidence produced by the complainant and admitted by the O.Ps. qua the said defect, it proves that the purchased mobile set has not been functioning properly and defect pointed out is within period of warranty. Firstly deficiency proves, secondly complainant is entitled for the relief. So sufficient evidence has come on the file to prove the complaint.

9.          In the light of discussion, the complaint stands allowed with the directions to the O.Ps. to replace the old mobile set with the new one within 40 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in case failed to comply the order then complainant is held entitled for Rs.8500/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 7.9.2017 with cost of Rs.500/-.

10.        The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties    forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the       file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                   ANNOUNCED                                                                       (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                   Dated .01.03.2018                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                        (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                        MEMBER