Delhi

North

RBT/CC/253/2022

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE RETAIL LTD - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jan 2023

ORDER

Consumer Complaint No.RBT/CC/253/2022

 

In the matter of

 

Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain

S/o Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain

R/o D-13/79, Ground Floor

Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-110085                                                    ..........Complainant

Vs

 

Reliance Retail Limited

Lyf Smart Phone

First Floor, C-34/4, Lawrence Road,

Delhi-110035                                                                       .....Opposite party

 

                                                        

                                     

ORDER
02/01/2023

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

The present complaint has been received by way of transfer vide order No.F.1/SCDRC/Admn./Transfer/2022/330 dated 16/04/2022 of Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, where the matter was transferredfrom DCDRC-V (North West) to this Commission. 

          This complaint has been filed by Sh.Sunil Kumar Jain, the complainant against, Reliance Retail Ltd., the OP, with the allegations of unfair trade practice.  The complainant has prayed for directions to OP to replace the defective mobile handset and pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. 

          Fact necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that, the complainant had earlier filed a complaint vide CC No.1167/2016, titled as “Sunil Jain vs Gupta Telecom & Ors” before DCDRC-V (North West), which was disposed of as settled. As per the settlement, the OP had agreed to replace the original handset with the new one, alongwith compensation of Rs. 5,500/- inclusive of litigation expenses.

          It has been stated by the complainant that the handset given as replacement was also defective for which, the complainant approached OP on 01/07/2017 and 16/09/2017, for which jobsheet was issued. Since, the handset was defective and not working properly, a legal notice dated 08/11/2017 was served upon OP. 

          The complainant has annexed copy of the order passed in CCNo.1167/2016 as Annexure C-1, copy of returned delivery note No.0053679823 dated 25/05/2017 as Annexure C-2, jobsheet dated 26/05/2017 and 21/06/2017 as Annexure C-3, legal notice alongwith postal receipts as Annexure C-4(Colly) copy of postal receipt as Annexure C-5& proof of delivery as Annexure C­-6.

          Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP, thereafter, written statement was filed.

They have taken several objections in their defence such as the complaint was false, frivolous and misconceived; the Commission did not have jurisdiction; no expert evidence was filed on record etc.

          It has been submitted by OP that the handset in question was given to the complainant as a replacement in settlement arrived in CC No.1167/2016 on 20/04/2017. The present complaint was misuse of law in order to extort money from the OP and obtain new handset.  It was further submitted that there was no defect in the handset.  Service of legal notice was denied alongwith rest of the contents of the complaint.

          Rejoinder to the written statement of the OP was filed by the complainant, which has not been signed therefore, the same cannot be considered to be part of record.

          Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where he has deposed on oath the contents of his complaint and has relied on the Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4.  He has also got exhibited the copy of postal receipt as Annexure C-5 & proof of delivery as Annexure C­-6.

          Ms. Shruti Chandra, Special Power of Attorney and Authorised Signatory was examined on behalf of OP.  They have also repeated the contents of their written statement on oath. 

          We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record. The dispute is with respect to the handset which was given as replacement to the complainant for the original handset (herein after referred as the replaced handset)

          Complainant has placed on record the Return delivery note                    No. 0053679823 dated 25.05.2017 (Annexure C-2) as per which brand new sealed device as replacement was handed over to the Complainant

          Complainant has also placed on record Jobsheets dated 26.05.2017 with complaint of Wifi not working and another jobsheet dated 21.06.2017 (Annexure C-3) with problem of “Heating”.

If we look at the Engineer remarks it is seen “we have check handset normal temp found, only graphic sheet replace:

Repair remarks: Graphicsheet replace, qc done handset ok.

The complainant has alleged that the “replaced handset” is also defective. Though the facts pleaded by the Complainant are cryptic but what information we can gather from the jobsheets annexed with the complaint are that, the original handset was purchased on 23.07.2016. During the course of arguments, it was stated by the Complainant that the replaced handset was under warranty as the same was handed over to him on 25.05.2017. As far as this contention is concern the warranty of the replaced handset will be covered from the original warranty period. Therefore the warranty for the replaced handset was from 23.07.2016 to 22.07.2017.

The Complainant has also placed on record the jobsheet dated 23.04.2018. The problem reported in this jobsheet No. 8015071547 is being reproduced here under;

Problem reported: Hang on lyf problem Els status: Outer check, Note: we cant create the Extended Wty bcz device was replace last year rs-175 showing in call Eng. Remarks: we have check handset hanged on lyf log, after s/w done

 

         

 

 

 

 

Further the same jobsheet reveals the status as “cancel” and warranty status as “out of warranty”. As per this the disputed handset has been returned without repair with status reason “Estimate not approved”. So it is clear that the “replaced handset” was return without repairs, as the Complainant did not approve of the estimated cost of repairs. Once, the Complainant has refused to get the repairs done he cannot allege deficiency in service on part of OP.

          Therefore, in the facts and circumstances the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without order to cost.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website also.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)                      (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

Member                                             President