Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/18/419

RELIANCE DIGITAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHWETA GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

SH.AKASH TELANG

16 Jan 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

                   PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL                         

                                                                         

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 419 OF 2018

(Arising out of order dated 04.10.2018 passed in C.C.No.136/2018 by the District Commission, Bhopal-1)

 

1. RELIANCE DIGITAL, BHOPAL,

    DRISHTI PLAZA, GROUND & FIRST FLOOR,

    PLOT NO.162, MANDAKINI COLONY, SARVDHARMA,

    KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                          

 

2. RELIANCE JIO SERVICE CENTRE,

    5, EARNING POINT, SHALIMAR GARDEN,

    MANDAKINI COLONY, SARVDHARMA,

    KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

3. RELIANCE LYF HEAD OFFICE,

    RELIANCE RETAIL LTD. 3^RD FLOOR,

    ‘B’-WING, FORTUNE BUILDING, BHARAT NAGAR,

     BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI (M.S.)                                         ….         APPELLANTS

              Versus      

          

SHWETA GUPTA,

D/O SHRI SURESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,

FLAT NO.204, H-BLOCK, JANKI APARTMENT,

FINE AVENUE, KOLAR ROAD, GEHUNKHEDA,

KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                       …         RESPONDENT.

                                    

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                       :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Mayur Mandhanya, learned counsel for the appellants.

            Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                         O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 16.01.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

                         

          This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellants’) is directed against the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal-1 (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.136/2018 whereby the District

-2-

Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’).

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the respondent had purchased a mobile handset of make- ‘LYF Water 11’ after paying a sum of Rs.8,460/-, from the appellant no. 1 on 02.10.2016. The product had one year warranty from the date of purchase and an extended warranty for further period of one year. However, the said mobile handset became defective within two months of its purchase.  It stopped abruptly while functioning on 10.12.2016. The respondent approached the appellant no.1, who suggested her to approach appellant no.2. The respondent approached the appellant no.2 on 10.12.2016, who made handset functional after some adjustments.  The respondent had to again approach appellant no.2 regarding certain defects on 12.12.2016, which he temporarily repaired. Thereafter on 28.12.2016, the mobile handset again started reporting problems and the respondent yet again approached the appellant no.2 regarding repairs of the defects which again were temporarily repaired by the engineer by making some minor adjustments.

3.                On 09.09.2017, the handset again starting reporting problems and the respondent asked the appellants to replace it, since it was giving troubles repeatedly but the engineer of the appellant no.2 asked her to pay Rs.6,800/- as repair charges. It is alleged that the aforesaid act of the

-3-

appellants amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the mobile handset was under warranty and the appellants ought to have repaired the same free of cost. Therefore, the respondent approached the District Commission seeking relief.

4.                The appellants in their reply before the District Commission stated that they had repaired the mobile handset every time, whenever the respondent had approached them.  On 09.09.2017, when the respondent brought the mobile handset for repairs, it was observed by the appellants that there was liquid inside the touch screen of the said mobile handset. Eleven months since the date of its purchase had elapsed and the aforesaid repair was not covered under the warranty provided by the appellants. Therefore, an estimate of Rs.6,800/- was given to the respondent.  It is submitted that there has been no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

5.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellants, jointly or severally to replace the mobile handset in question with a new mobile handset of the same brand and price within a period of two months and in failure to do so appellants are directed to refund the cost of the said mobile handset i.e. Rs.8,460/- to the respondent.  In addition, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as costs is also awarded.  Hence this appeal.

-4-

6.                Heard. Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for the appellants argued that when the respondent had brought the mobile handset for repairs on 09.09.2017, it was observed by the engineer of the appellant no.2 that touch penal section

of the product was liquid logged.  Immediately, the service engineer of the appellant no.2 informed the respondent that the damage in the product is not covered under the warranty as per clause 5(a) of the warranty terms and conditions.  The appellants had given repair estimate to the respondent but the respondent refused to pay any charges and insisted free of cost repairs. The appellant no.2 had always given service, every time the respondent approached with regard to defects in the mobile handset but since the recent damage to the product was because of liquid logging, it was not covered under the warranty and therefore the estimate for repairs was given.  The District Commission has not considered the aforesaid fact and the impugned order therefore deserves to be set-aside.  

8.                Learned counsel for the respondent argued that there has been no liquid damage to the product, as has been alleged by the appellants.  He argued that the respondent had to repeatedly approach the appellants, regarding repairs in the said mobile handset.  On 09.09.2017, the respondent requested that a new mobile handset be provided to her, since the said product required repairs repeatedly.  The appellants however

-5-

handed over an estimate to the respondent which the respondent refused to accept.  He argued that the mobile handset was suffering from manufacturing defects and the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint. This appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed.

9.                The appellants have stated that they had repaired the mobile handset every time, whenever the respondent approached them. It is alleged by the appellants that they refused to repair mobile handset free of cost on 09.09.2017 because the touch panel section of the handset was liquid logged.  We find that apart from this bald submission by the appellants, there is no substantiating evidence to support their contention.  Condition no.5 (a) cited by the appellants, pertains to conditions for no coverage or benefits to the consumer and this certainly includes exposure to excessive moisture or dampness and spills of food or liquids inside the product, but the appellants have failed to prove that liquid was actually inside the screen, when the respondent had approached them for repairs.

10.              Various job-sheets available in the record and the specific submission of the respondent that she had to repeatedly approach the appellants regarding repairs, for one or the other defect, has not been denied by the appellants.  Also, the respondent has controverted the submissions of the appellants, through counter affidavit, which is available in the record.  In the circumstances, we are of a considered view that the

-6-

District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint and directed for replacement of the mobile handset or refund of its cost.

11.              In our considered view, the impugned order passed by the District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, which is hereby upheld.

12.              As a result, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

     (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)           (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                      

                      PRESIDENT                                            MEMBER