Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.S. Rana (R) President, Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Reliance Retail Limited - Appellant
Versus
Shri Vinay Soni - Respondent
First Appeal No. 30 of 2018
Decided On : 12-06-2018
Consumer Protection Act - Territorial Jurisdiction, Warranty Conditions - Section 11, 12, 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 - The court held that the District Forum had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint as the product was originally sold to the complainant at a specific place. The court also ruled that the warranty period for the battery had expired, and the manufacturer was not obligated to repair or replace it free of charge. Additionally, the court clarified the distinction between guarantee and warranty, stating that the manufacturer was not legally obligated to replace the mobile phone due to the absence of a guarantee card. The court emphasized the need for expert evidence to prove manufacturing defects and found the opposite parties liable for not addressing the hanging problem during the warranty period.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a mobile phone and experienced hanging and battery problems within the warranty period. The opposite parties failed to rectify the issues, leading to the consumer complaint seeking a refund, replacement, and compensation for harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Forum had territorial jurisdiction, the warranty for the battery had expired, and the manufacturer was not obligated to replace the mobile phone. The court also emphasized the need for expert evidence to prove manufacturing defects and held the opposite parties liable for not addressing the hanging problem during the warranty period.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction, warranty conditions, liability for manufacturing defects, and obligation to address issues during the warranty period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, warranty conditions, and the need for expert evidence to prove manufacturing defects. The court emphasized the legal principles related to territorial jurisdiction, warranty obligations, and the burden of proof for manufacturing defects.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the order to require the opposite parties to replace the defective parts of the mobile set, except for the battery, charger, and USB cable, within one month free of charge. The compensation for mental harassment was affirmed, and the parties were left to bear their own litigation costs.
ORDER
P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 15.01.2018 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.85/2017 titled Vinay Soni vs. Reliance Retail Ltd. & Ors.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Shri Vinay Soni filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that opposite party No.1 is manufacturer of mobile phone. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 has various authorized dealer and service centre in Himachal Pradesh. It is pleaded that complainant purchased mobile phone for his personal use in consideration amount of Rs. 13500/-(Thirteen thousand five hundred) from opposite party No.4 vide bill No.035. It is pleaded that after seven months mobile phone started hanging problem in applications within warranty period and battery of mobile phone also started problem. It is further pleaded that complainant approached opposite party No.4 and opposite party No.4 advised complainant to visit Jio customer care centre at Kangra. It is pleaded that thereafter complainant visited twice customer care centre on 10.12.2016 and 16.02.2017. It is pleaded that service engineer returned the handset after update of software but hanging problem of mobile phone and battery problem of mobile phone was not rectified. It is pleaded that thereafter complainant again visited opposite party No.3 on 01.05.2017 with battery problem and hanging problem of mobile phone. It is pleaded that opposite party No.3 replaced battery and charged Rs. 921/-(Nine hundred twenty one). It is pleaded that problem was not rectified and mobile phone started automatic switch off problem. Complainant requested the opposite parties through repeated emails to rectify the problems of mobile phone but opposite parties did not rectify the problem. It is further pleaded that opposite parties have sold defective mobile phone to complainant with manufacturing defect. It is pleaded that complainant visited opposite party No.3 for about four times and also sent seven emails but opposite party No.3 did not rectify the defect and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of refund of amount of Rs. 13500/-(Thirteen thousand five hundred) with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 16.02.2016 till realization. In alternative complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite parties be directed to provide new mobile phone of same model to complainant. In addition complainant also sought compensation for mental and physical harassment to the tune of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1 to 3 pleaded therein that District Consumer Forum Kangra has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide consumer complaint because warranty card provides exclusive jurisdiction of courts situated at Mumbai. It is pleaded that opposite party No.1 is not manufacturer of smart phone. It is pleaded that opposite party No.1 has imported the product and sold and distributed product in India through its distribution channel. It is pleaded that product was properly checked and thereafter purchased by complainant. It is further pleaded that battery of mobile phone was replaced with charger after expiry of warranty period of battery. It is pleaded that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Opposite party No.4 did not appear before learned District Forum and did not file any version. Learned District Forum proceeded ex-parte against opposite party No.4.
5. Learned District Forum ordered opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the mobile phone with new one of the same value or in alternative to refund costs of mobile phone to complainant within thirty days from the receipt of copy of order. Learned District Forum also ordered opposite parties to pay sum of Rs. 3000/-(Three thousand) a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
