BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                            Complaint Case no.117 of  2017     

                                                          Date of Institution:          26.5.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:     27.2.2018

Bhupinder Singh Vinayak, Advocate, District & Sessions Courts, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1 Shree Satyam Mobiles, authorized Company show-room, through its authorized Partner/Prop./ Incharge Near Chandan Cake House, Sardar Bazar, Sirsa.

2 Reliance Wind, Reliance communication (Jio), Dabwali Road, Opposite Shakti Motors, Sirsa.

                              ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT

                   SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.

Present:           Complainant in person.

Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

          In brief, case of complainant is that complainant is permanent resident of above said address and is peace loving and law abiding person of the area and having routs in the society and as the complainant is an Advocate by profession and is practicing as an advocate at district & Sessions Courts, Sirsa, hence his whole work depends on mobile communication. The op no.1 is running a mobile shop under the name and style as “Satyam Mobile” and the op no.1 is claiming himself to be the in this field and believing upon your advertisements published by him in the city, the complainant approached the op no.1 and purchased a one mobile set make Reliance Wind 4, bearing IMEI No.911498100306103 from the op no.1, against cash amount of Rs.6800/- vide invoice No.1238 dated 27.5.2016 at the time of purchase of above mobile, the op no.1 assured the complainant that the company has given guarantee/warrantee of one year for any manufacturing defect in the set and in case of any defect mobile will be exchange with a new one without any cost and also provide the any kind of damaged/breakage warranty. However it is pertinent to mention here that at the time of issuing the invoice regarding above said mobile, the op no.1 has duly mentioned the bill about the guaranty regarding damage/breakage  as well as free net regarding free voice call & internet facility for one year through Jio Network, because at the time of purchasing the above said mobile set, the op no.1 has offered the complainant a jio sim and has assured the complainant that through this sim, the complainant can avail the opportunity to use to free 4g jio internet with call for the period of one year. Due to bad luck of the complainant, the mobile set of the complainant had damaged. The complainant on detecting the damage in the mobile set approach to the op no.1 and complained about the damage and the op though on checking the handset & found it to be as damaged, but at that time, the op no.1 put off the complainant simply and give assurance to the complainant that if the complainant approached to the op no.2, they would redress complaint of complainant, hence the complainant approached the op no.2, except the above said defect in the mobile set, he also disclosed to the complainant that there is also a defect in the camera and display, but he refused to admit the claim of the complainant by stating that the physical not cover under warranty and even the op no.2 has misbehaved with the complainant; whereas at the time of purchasing of mobile, the op no.1 assured the op no.1 that in future if the mobile set will suffer any kind of damage during the warranty period, then it will replace the damaged part, but now the care centre of company has refused to redress the grievance of the complainant. The complainant is reputed person having high reputation in the society and his whole communication depends upon the telephonic communication, but due to negligence in the service and unfair trade practice, on their part, the complainant suffered disturbance and as such undergone financial loss on this accounts, hence the complainant besides the replacement of the mobile set with new fresh one, is also entitled for the compensation amount of Rs.80,000/- for unnecessary harassment and humiliation, mental tension, financial loss etc. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared and filed reply and have taken preliminary objection regarding submitting therein that the complainant has intentionally referred the authorized service center for LYF Brand mobile devices located at Sirsa as “Reliance Wind” instead of “Reliance Retail Ltd.” This forum does not have jurisdiction, as the warranty card accompanying with the product provides for exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Mumbai. On merit, it is further submitted that the standard warranty on the handsfree and USB cable is extended for a period of 3 months from date of original retail purchase. It is further submitted that, the standard warranty on the charger and battery of product is extended for a period of 6 months from date of original retail purchase. It is further submitted that, the standard warranty on the Product(excluding battery, charger, USB cable and handsfree ) is extended warranty for a further period of 12 months is also made available with the product provided the purchaser of the product activates the extended warranty as per the terms and conditions applicable for the same. It is further submitted that, warranty extended on the product is subject to warranty terms and conditions as contained in the warranty card accompanying with the product. It is submitted that purchase of product and subscription to telecom service are not inter-connected activities. It is further submitted that op no.2 i.e. Reliance Retail Limited do not provide telecom services. It is further respectfully submitted that the complainant should be put to strict proof to prove the factum on his averments. The complainant noticing the alleged problem in the product, complainant approaching op no.1 to complain about the alleged problems in the product, the op no.1 suggesting complainant to approach op no.2, pertain to a matter within exclusive knowledge of the complainant therefore, the same are not admitted for want of knowledge. It is further submitted that the complainant visited op no.2 for the very first time on 29.4.2017 to report the alleged problem with display and back camera of the product. It is further submitted that, after depositing the dead product by complainant, op no.2 created a job sheet bearing no.8009062981. It is further submitted that, after inspection and verification of the product, op no.2 found that the display of the product was broken. It is further submitted that, op no.2 immediately demonstrated the broken display of the product to the complainant. it is further submitted that as the product was found in customer induced damage state, it was warranty void as per clause 5 of the terms and conditions of warranty extended with the product, and therefore op no.2 informed the complainant that he will have to bear the cost of replacement of parts of the product and relevant repair charges. It is further submitted that, op no.2 provided estimate of repair to the complainant, however the complainant refused accept the fact that the product is in customer induced damage state, and also refused to make any payment to carry out repairs to the product, and insisted for free of cost repairs to the product. It is further submitted that, op no.2 noted the remark of “Display Broken” on the job sheet no.8009062981, which was signed and acknowledged by the complainant. Op no.2 explained to the complainant that repairs/replacement, if any, of the product is governed by the terms and conditions of warranty extended on the product, however the complainant insisted for free of cost repairs or replacement of the product. It is further submitted that, as the op no.2 refused to carry out free of cost repairs to the warranty void product, complainant left the premises of op no.2 without collecting the product. It is further submitted that the complainant did not come to op no.2 to report the complaint of alleged defects in the product, with clean hands and concealed the fact that the product is in customer induced damage state. It is further submitted that, after 29.4.2017, op no.2 sent a reminder letter to complainant to collect the product lying with op no.2, however, complainant neither collected the product nor responded to the letter from op no.2. It is further respectfully submitted that, the product is lying in custody of op no.2 since 21.7.2017, however despite sending reminder letter, complainant has not collected the product. It is further reiterated that, warranty extended on the product is subject to warranty terms and conditions as contained in the warranty card accompanying with the product. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.

3.                The complainant produced documents, copy of bill Ex.C1. On the other hand, ops do not produced any document in their evidence.

4.                We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The perusal of the complaint reveals that complainant purchased mobile set make reliance Wind 4, bearing IMEI No. 911498100306103 from the op no.1, against cash amount of Rs.6800/- vide invoice No.1238 dated 27.5.2016 and the op has given warranty of one year for any manufacturing defect in the mobile set. The mobile of the complainant is not working properly as there is a defect in the camera and display but the op no.2 has misbehaved with the complainant and refused to admit the warranty of one year of the mobile set of the complainant.  In this case, the complainant has filed document Ex.C1 copy of bill of mobile set. On the other hand, ops have filed written statement in which they have not denied sale of the mobile to the complainant by op no.1 but they have submitted that the warranty extended on the product is subject to warranty terms and conditions as contained in the warranty card accompanied with the product. It has been submitted that complainant visited op no.2 for the very first time on 29.4.2017 after 11 months from the purchase of product to report the alleged problem with the display and back camera of the product. After depositing the dead product by complainant op no.2 created a job sheet bearing no.8009062981 and after inspection and verification of the product, op no.2 immediately demonstrated the broken display of the product to the complainant. And it was warranty void as per clause 5 of the terms and conditions of warranty extended with the product. The complainant requested for free of cost replacement of the product for which op no.2 refused to carryout free of cost repairs to the warranty void product. The perusal of the fact that op no.2 has filed written statement in their evidence and has been taken pleas of warranty card inspite of defence plea due to the reasons best known to them and furthermore, it is proved fact on record that the mobile of the complainant was not working and was suffering from defect within the warranty period and it was legal obligations of the opposite party to provide service to the complainant to make the mobile set of the complainant defect free and the op has not provided the service as required by law and there is deficiency in service on the part of the ops.

6.                    In view of above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repair of the mobile in question of the complainant and to make it defect free without any cost within a period of one month, against proper receipt, from the date of receipt of copy of this order but in case mobile set is not repairable, the ops shall be liable to replace the mobile of the complainant with a new one of same make and model within further period of 15 days and further in case it is found that mobile of same make and model is not available, then the ops shall be liable to refund the price of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.6800/- to the complainant within further period of one month. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.   File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.              Member                      President,

Dated:27.2.2018.                                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.