Final Order of DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, Court Room No.19, Block-C,Judicial Court Complex, BATHINDA-151001 (PUNJAB) PUNJAB Complaint Case No. CC/17/77 1. Anjali Bathinda ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Reliance Bathinda ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Mohinder Pal Singh Pahwa PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. Sukhwinder Kaur MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Jarnail Singh MEMBER For the Complainant: Ashok Gupta, Advocate For the Opp. Party: Dated : 02 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.77 of 17-03-2017 Decided on 02-01-2018 Anjali D/o Sanjeev Kumar R/o H. No 11413, Street No 3-B, Jujhar Singh Nagar, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Reliance Retail Ltd, Barnala Road, Bathinda through its Incharge/Branch Manager. .......Opposite party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur Member Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Ashok Gupta, Advocate. For opposite party: Sh.Varun Gupta, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Anjali (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party Reliance Retail Ltd. (here-in-after referred to as opposite party). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she purchased one Karbonn mobile handset for Rs.7500/- from opposite party with warranty of 1 year against every type of defect on 17.5.2015. She got extended the warranty from 17.5.2016 to 16.5.2017. It is alleged that the mobile handset was not working as it was having many manufacturing defects. It was revealed to opposite party, but the defects could not be removed. Opposite party got deposited the mobile handset and noted down the complaint regarding bluetooth not working, wi-fi not working, video play time speaker not working and battery recent low in its complaint book. It got deposited the mobile handset to exchange the same with new one vide customer exchange docket No.715 on 2.1.2017. It is further alleged that opposite party is not giving the new mobile handset as committed. It is knowing fully well that the mobile handset is not repairable and it is having many manufacturing defects mentioned in the docket. The mobile handset was deposited with opposite party on 2.1.2017 within extended warranty, which is going to be expired on 17.5.2017. It is still in the possession of opposite party. On 11.3.2017, the complainant visited opposite party and requested it to give her new mobile handset as promised, but it did not listen to her. Due to this act of opposite party, she is suffering mental tension. She has claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for this suffering in addition to Rs.1000/- as cost and new mobile handset. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version. In the written version, opposite party has raised the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. It is bad in law for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. Opposite party is just retailer of various electronics goods including the mobile handset. It is not involved in the manufacturing process of the product sold at its store. The product was under extended warranty. Opposite party fully co-operated with the complainant and registered her each and every complaint and removed the defect from the device to her satisfaction. Further preliminary objections are that the complainant has not come with clean hands. She has suppressed the material as well as relevant facts before this Forum. She is trying to misuse the jurisdiction of this Forum. It is further pleaded that the mobile handset has been rectified from all the defects. The device free from all defects is lying at store, but the complainant is not coming to collect it. The complaint, if accepted against opposite party, will result in unlawful gain to the complainant and unlawful loss to opposite party. It causes miscarriage of justice. On merits, sale of the mobile handset is not denied. It is denied that opposite party gave warranty for one year. It is further mentioned that the warranty is always given by the manufacturer and never given by retailer. However, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the extended warranty from opposite party. As per opposite party, the defect in the mobile handset happened during its usage. Opposite party registered the complaint and sent to the service centre for repair. All alleged defects are rectified. It is denied that the purpose of this so called 'customer exchange docket' was only for the exchange of the mobile handset. The form is used to get and fill information narrated by the complainant and filling of this form is solely for the purpose of proof towards deposit of the mobile handset by the complainant and it does not denote that it is a promise towards getting of new device. Further, the service obligations were to be undertaken by opposite party and complainant is governed by the service agreement called 'ResQ Care Plan' executed between the parties. All other averments of the complainant are controverted. In the end opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of her claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence customer data, (Ex.C1); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C2); photocopy of customer exchange docket, (Ex.C3); her affidavit dated 7.7.2017, (Ex.C4) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Umendra Kr. Singh dated 18.9.2017, (Ex.OP1/1) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the mobile handset from opposite party and she got extended the warranty from 17.5.2016 to 16.5.2017. It is also not disputed that she deposited the mobile handset with opposite party with customer exchange docket, (Ex.C3). The defects reported above regarding 'bluetooth, wi-fi and video playing'. The documents itself proves that opposite party promised for exchange of mobile handset with new one, but now it is resiling from this offer. Opposite party has pleaded that all the defects have been rectified and complainant has not come forward to collect the mobile handset. The mobile handset was handed over to opposite party on 2.1.2017. There is nothing on record to prove that the complainant was ever called to collect the mobile handset. It is clear that opposite party has taken the false plea to save its skin. The deficiency in service on the part of opposite party stands proved. A number of defects noted in customer exchange docket also lead to inference that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to claimed reliefs. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has submitted that the complaint is misconceived. Opposite party has been unnecessarily dragged into litigation. The complainant himself has produced on record receipt, (Ex.C1) to prove extended warranty. The extended warranty was given by 'ResQ Care Plan'. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite party that moreover opposite party has fairly pleaded that the mobile handset is already ready and duly repaired. The complainant has not come forward to collect the mobile handset. This fact was also mentioned in the written version filed on 28.4.2017. Therefore, the complainant is in the knowledge that the mobile handset is ready after duly repair. In these circumstances, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed on the part of opposite party. The complaint be dismissed with special cost. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. Admitted facts are that the mobile handset was purchased from opposite party. The complainant has also availed extended warranty from 17.5.2016 to 16.5.2017. The mobile handset was handed over to opposite party vide customer exchange docket, (Ex.C3) on 2.1.2017. The defects reported in the mobile handset are also noted down in this docket. The point is whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of the mobile handset with new one or its repair. As per complainant himself, the mobile handset was purchased on 17.5.2015 and there was warranty for one year. There is no complaint of any manufacturing defect within the warranty period of one year. Only complaint is dated 2.1.2017, which is within the extended warranty period. The complainant has not brought on record terms and conditions of extended warranty, but in case, there was any manufacturing defect, the mobile handset was not to be used for a period of more than one and half years. Moreover there is nothing on record to prove any manufacturing defect. Opposite party admitted that the complainant got extended warranty period. It is further pleaded that the service obligations to be undertaken by opposite party is governed by service agreement called 'ResQ Care Plan'. None of party brought on record copy of 'ResQ Care Plan', but opposite party has not denied from its obligation to provide the service as per extended warranty. The plea of opposite party is that the mobile handset is ready and duly repaired and complainant has not come forward to collect it. The mobile handset was received by opposite party on 2.1.2017. The date of delivery is not mentioned in the document. There is nothing on record to prove that the complainant was ever called by opposite party to collect the mobile handset after duly repair. Therefore, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party. Opposite party is directed to handover the mobile handset in question after duly repair to the complainant. It is further made clear that original warranty/guarantee shall stand extended for the remaining period for 4 months from the date of delivery of mobile handset to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 02-01-2018 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh) Member [HON'BLE MR. Mohinder Pal Singh Pahwa] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. Sukhwinder Kaur] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Jarnail Singh] MEMBER