Haryana

Panchkula

CC/44/2015

URMILA SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE RETAILS LIMITED. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

17 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	44 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	04.03.2015
Date of Decision	:	17.06.2015

                                                                                          

Urmila Sharma, aged 30 years, wife of Shri Ajay Sharma, resident of House No. 608, Mamta Enclave, Dhakouli, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar Mohali (Punjab).

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Reliance Retails Limited, DSS No. 261, Sector 20, Panchkula through its Manager.
2. Shri Ganesh Mobile Solutions, Authorized Service Centre Karbonn, Shop No. 9/1, Village Maheshpur, Sector 21, Tehsil and District Panchkula, through its Manager.
3. Karbonn Mobile Pvt. Ltd. D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 through its Care Manager.

                                                                         ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Ajay Kumar, authorized representative for the complainant.

Mr.Sanjeev Pabbi, Advocate for OP no. 1.

Mr.Ankush Gupta, Advocate for Ops no. 2 & 3.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complaint has been filed by Ajay Kumar authorized representative for the complainant-Urmila Sharma against the Ops with the averments that she had purchased a Karbonn Tablet Model A37HD, IMEI No. 911305200409809 & 911305200513803 on 24.10.2014 from OP no. 1 for Rs. 4989/- (Annexure C-1) vide bill No.7726011000324102014. At the time of purchase of the Tablet, the salesman of OP No.1 assured the complainant that the set was all right & it would work effectively and the tablet carried a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase. After that, the mobile phone started giving problem within two days of its purchase as the touch of the tablet was not working effectively which seems to be due to manufacturing defects. Thereafter, the complainant visited to the OP No.1 many times but he refused to entertain the request of the complainant and after repeated requests made by the complainant, the OP No.1 directed the complainant to approach the OP No. 2 for rectifying the defect. On 25.11.2014, the complainant brought the defects to the notice of the OP No. 2 and the officials of the OP No. 2 took the tablet of the complainant & issued him job sheet NKJASPHR1461114K870 (Annexure C-2). The official of Op No.2 directed the complainant to come after two/three days for taking the delivery of the tablet after rectification of the defect. After three days, the complainant visited the office of the OP no. 2 but the official of the OP no. 2 told the complainant to come after 10-15 days for taking the delivery of the tablet. They further disclosed that still they have not received the accessories from the OP no. 3 and only after receipt of the same, the tablet of the complainant would be repaired. Thereafter, the complainant again visited the office of OP no. 2 on 24.01.2015 and asked about the tablet but the officials of the OP no. 2 again put the same excuse and further the executive told the complainant that in case she wants to get the tablet repaired early then she has to pay Rs. 2,000/- on account of repair charges whereas the tablet was within warranty period. The complainant requested the executive that to repair the tablet without any charges or to replace the said tablet with new one as the defect was manufacturing defect, but the said official totally denied the request of the complainant. The act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that OP no. 1 is just a retailer of various electronic goods including mobile cell phones/tablets and is not involved in the manufacturing process of the product sold at its store.  It is submitted that OP No. 1 could not remove the ‘defects’ in the product purchased by the complainant from OP No. 1 as the service agreement of the product sold was with the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No. 3 and not with the opposite party No. 1. It is submitted that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Op No.1 so, the complaint is not maintainable against the OP No. 1 as cause of action which has been is made out against the OP no. 1 by the complainant is devoid of any justification. It is submitted that the Ops No. 2 & 3 are service center the manufacture of the said Karbonn Tablet and are wholly responsible for any manufacturing defects in their products and repairing thereof.  It is submitted that the OP No.1 was informed about the defect in the device and the complainant was advised to visit the service centre of the manufacturer. It is submitted that the Op No.1 also contacted the Op No.2 wherein Op No.2 stated that they were ready to give certificate for exchange with new device from the store but even after repeated calls, the complainant could not be contacted. It is submitted that the OP No.1 is a trusted organization which held exemplary respect among its customers due to the quality of its services. It is submitted that the customers visited the store were apprised of the features of the products on display and informed of the prices and thereafter, the customer made their own choices as per their requirements.  Thus, there was no deficiency of service on the part of OP no. 1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

3. The Ops no. 2 & 3 appeared before this Forum and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that Ajay Kumar visited the OP No. 2 with the problem of “Touch Panel Faulty”. It is submitted that the OP no. 2 had issued the job sheet & checked the problem in Tablet set and rectified the said defect in the Tablet. It is submitted that the OP No. 2 informed Ajay Kumar telephonically about rectification of defect but he did not come to collect the Tablet which was still laying with the OP no. 2 in good condition. It is submitted that it was the duty of the customer to collect the tablet from OP no. 2 but he did not turn up till today. It is submitted that the warranty period was provided by the Op No.3 only to its original customer. It is denied that the complainant visited the Op No.2 for collecting the tablet. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops No.2 & 3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.  
4. Rejoinder to the written statement has been filed by the complainant.
5. The Authorized representative for the complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 and C-2 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP no. 1 has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A and closed the evidence. Counsel for Ops No. 2 & 3 has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure RW1/A alongwith document Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.
6. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the case file has been perused very carefully.
7. It is evident from the cash memo (Annexure C-1), the complainant purchased a Karbonn Tablet Model A37HD from the Op No.1 for an amount of Rs.4989/- with warranty of one year. After purchasing the same, the mobile phone started giving problem in touch panel. The complainant contacted the Op No.2 to repair the mobile hand set and was issued job sheet No.KJASPHR1461114K870 (Annexure C-2) and was asked to come after 2/3 days. After three days, the complainant contacted the Op No.2 who disclosed that they have not received the accessories from the Op No.3 so the mobile phone has not repaired. On 24.01.2015, the complainant again visited the Op No.2 for taking the delivery of the mobile phone but the executive of the Op No.2 demanded Rs.2000/- on account of repair charges whereas the tablet was within warranty period. The complainant requested the Op No.2 to repair the tablet without charges or to replace the same with new one as there was some manufacturing defect in the mobile phone but they refused to do so.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 contended that he is just a retailer of various electronic goods including mobile phones/tablets and is not involved in the manufacturing process. Learned counsel for the Op No.1 submitted that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Op No.1. He further submitted that the complainant contacted the Op No.1 who advised the complainant to visit the authorized service center for his grievances. However, we find no merit in this contention. The Op No.1 cannot wriggle out or escape from its liability/duty to render services to the complainant under a plea that he is only a Retailer, especially when he is an authorized agent/agency of the said mobile company.
9. The Ops No.2 and 3 also admitted in their written statement that the complainant visited OP No.2 for the problem of Touch Panel Faulty (Annexure R-1) in the mobile hand set. The Ops No.2 and 3 in their affidavit (Annexure RW1/A) also submitted that they have offered the complainant to replace the mobile set but the complainant did not come to collect the tablet and it is the duty of the customer to collect the tablet from the OP No.2. But the Ops have not produced any document to prove that they contacted the complainant to collect the mobile phone. From the above, it is clear that there was defect in the mobile phone and it is the duty of the Ops to render their proper service to the customers who spent huge money to facilitate themselves.
10. The main grouse of the complainant is that he visited the Ops a number of times to collect the repaired tablet but to no avail. We feel that it was the duty of the Ops to satisfy the complainant by getting his tablet repaired in a perfect manner, but they have miserably failed to do so. Therefore, non-providing of services to the complainant even being the tablet within the warranty period which became defective just within 2 days of its purchase and further keeping it in their possession clearly proves deficiency in service on the part of the Ops which certainly has caused him mental and physical harassment.
11. In the light of the above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Ops are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the complainant deserves to be succeeded and the same is allowed accordingly. The Ops are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To repair the Karbonn Tablet in question of the complainant free of charge and make it fully functional with extended warranty of one year.
2. To pay Rs.8,000/- for causing mental agony, physical harassment and cost of litigation.

This order be complied with within a period of one month from the date of its communication to it comes about. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to records after due compliance.

Announced                     (Anita Kapoor)                       (Dharam Pal)

17.06.2015                     Member                                  President

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.  

                                            

                                                          Dharam Pal                                                                                                President