BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 316 of 2017
Date of Institution : 4.12.2017
Date of Decision : 25.07.2019.
Prem Chand, aged about 31 years son of Shri Atma Ram, resident of Gali No.6/1 Bharat Nagar, Kanganpur Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- R.K. S. Mobiles, Near Jindal Steel Works, Kanganpur Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa (Haryana), through its Proprietor/ partner.
- Reliance Retail Limited HR-SIRS-JC-01-1st Floor, Rathore Tower, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Incharge/ M.D.
- Reliance LYF Mobile Company Limited, marketed by Mankoli Naka, village Dapode, Tehsil Bhiwandi, District Thane Maharashtra 421302 through its Managing Director. (Marketed by LYF Mobile IMEI No.911524854516108 in India).
- Reliance LYF Mobile Company Limited, registered office: 3rd Floor, Court Hons, L.T. Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai- 400002 through its Regional Officer/ competent authority (Registered Office of LYF Mobile IMEI No.911524854516108 in India).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. B.C. Bhatiwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Neeraj Narula, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 to 4.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that on 16.2.2017, the complainant purchased one LYF mobile from op no.1 on payment of Rs.7000/- vide bill no.259 dated 16.2.2017 with guarantee of one year. The op no.1 is authorized dealer of LYF product and op no.2 is care centre. That after purchase of said mobile, he came to know that this mobile takes about 10 hours for charging, becomes hot and can be burst at any time and is not giving proper performance rather hangs during call. The complainant immediately visited op no.2 and narrated these problems, who repaired it and returned to the complainant but all in vain and it could not be worked properly and could not charged properly. The complainant visited the ops for about nine times for repairing but all in vain and ultimately the op no.2 refused to repair it rather stated that this is manufacturing defect and it can be only replaced through the company but both the ops have refused to replace the said mobile through company. That the act and conduct of the ops comes under the ambit of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, due to which complainant is suffering recurring financial losses and harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.2 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable, complainant has failed to bring on record any cogent and coherent evidence to prove his averments and this Forum has no jurisdiction as the warranty card accompanying with the product provides for exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts in Mumbai. On merits, it is submitted that standard warranty on the handsfree and USB cable is extended for a period of 3 months from date of original retail purchase and on the charger and battery is extended for a period of six months and standard warranty on the product (excluding battery, charger, USB cable and handsfree) is extended for a period of 12 months subject to warranty terms and conditions. It is further submitted that on 8.9.2017 that is nearly after seven months from purchase of product, complainant visited op no.2 to report the alleged problem of slow charging of the product, for which complainant filled and completed customer information slip provided by op no.2. Complainant did not report any other problem in respect of the product as alleged in complaint. He also made entry in customer entry registered maintained by op no.2. That after inspection and verification of the product, Service Engineer of op no.2 found that the printed circuit board of the product was not functioning properly. That to resolve the issue reported by complainant, DRS of op no.2 replaced the printed circuit board of the product under warranty on free of cost basis. It is further submitted that after replacement of PCBA, the product has been functioning normally, which was demonstrated by op no.2 to the complainant. That product was properly checked by complainant before taking delivery of product for which complainant signed and acknowledge job sheet. It is further submitted that about two weeks later, on 25.9.2017, complainant again visited op no.2 to report the alleged problem of slow charging of the product and after inspection and verification, DRS did not find any fault in the product as allegedly reported by complainant. The op no.2 requested complainant to show and explain alleged defect noticed by him. The complainant connected the product for charging and it was charging properly and he failed to demonstrate alleged defect. Yet, complainant insisted for replacement of product. The op no.2 refused to replace the product beyond warranty terms and conditions. Complainant took back the product from op no.2 on the same day for which he signed and acknowledged job sheet and op no.2 also noted the remark of” No fault found on the job sheet”. Thereafter, complainant did not report any further complaint in respect of the product with op no.2. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for ops made statements that written statement filed on behalf of op no.2 be also read on behalf of op no.1 and ops no.3 and 4.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also placed on record copy of credit memo dated 16.2.2017 Ex.C2. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Sunil Gandhi as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 in which he has reiterated all the averments of the written version. The ops have also produced copy of warranty terms and conditions Ex.R3, form Ex.R4, copies of customers entry details Ex.R5 and Ex.R6 and copies of job sheets Ex.R7, Ex.R8 and copy of customer information slip Ex.R9.
7. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased one LYF Mobile from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.7000/- on 16.2.2017. As per allegations of complainant, there was problem of slow charging in the mobile and he approached service centre of ops for nine times for repairing mobile set but all in vain and ultimately op no.2 refused to repair the mobile rather stated that it is manufacturing defect and it can be replaced through company. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the ops that only at one time complainant came to the service centre of op no.2 and after inspection and verification of the product, it was found that printed circuit board of the mobile was not functioning properly and in order to resolve issue, the printed circuit board was replaced under warrantee on free of cost basis and thereafter on visit of complainant on 25.9.2017 regarding his grievance of slow charging of the mobile, the op no.2 did not find any problem in respect of the mobile as alleged in the complaint.
8. The perusal of the evidence of ops reveals that ops have placed on record two job sheets dated 8.9.2017 and 25.9.2017 which itself speak that there was problem in the mobile set of the complainant for which he had been approaching the ops time and again.
9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops has strongly contended that warrantee was only for a period of six months and at the time of repair of mobile set of complainant, warrantee had already expired and now present complaint is not maintainable as the mobile set of complainant was out of warrantee when he filed the present complaint. The perusal of Ex.R3 which has been relied upon by ops reveals that warrantee of the product excluding battery, charger, handsfree and USB cable extends for a period of twelve months. Since there was problem in the printed circuit board of the mobile, so it can easily be presumed that warrantee of the mobile was for 12 months and he had purchased the mobile on 16.2.2017 and present complaint has been filed by complainant on 4.12.2017 which proves that mobile was within period of warrantee and it is legal obligation of the ops to provide after sales services to the complainant.
10. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set of the complainant and to make it defect free even by replacing any part without any cost within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the mobile set from the complainant. In case it is found that mobile is not repairable, then within further period of 15 days the ops shall be liable to replace the mobile with a new one of same make or model or to refund the price of the mobile after deducting 50% as depreciation charges. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated:25.07.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
