Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: battery in Reliance Retail Ltd. & Ors. vs Sh. Vinay Soni. & Anr. on 12 June, 2018Matching Fragments
(F.A. No.30/2018) 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.
Reliance Retail Ltd. & Ors. Versus Vinay Soni & Anr.
(F.A. No.30/2018)
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.
(F.A. No.30/2018) replaced the battery of product on chargeable basis. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. There is further recital in affidavit that there was no manufacturing problem.
11. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Amit Arora authorised signatory of Reliance Retail Ltd. There is recital in affidavit that learned District Forum Kangra has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint because as per warranty card only jurisdiction of courts situated in Mumbai lies. There is recital in affidavit that complainant visited opposite party No.3 for first time on 10.12.2016 after ten months of purchase of mobile phone. There is further recital in affidavit that charges for replacement of new battery claimed because claim of defective battery was furnished after expiry of warranty period of battery. There is recital in affidavit that standard warranty of the product excluding battery, charger & USB cable was for a period of twelve months. There is recital in affidavit that no manufacturing defect was proved on record by way of evidence of expert. There is recital in affidavit that there was no negligence in service on part of opposite parties No.1 to 3.
13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that warranty period of battery was six months and consumer complaint was filed on 10.12.2012 after ten months of sale of mobile phone and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. We have carefully perused warranty condition issued by opposite parties No.1 to Reliance Retail Ltd. & Ors. Versus Vinay Soni & Anr.
(F.A. No.30/2018)
3. As per warranty condition warranty period of battery is six months. In view of the fact that complaint relating to battery was not filed within six months from purchase and in view of the fact that mobile phone was purchased on dated 16.02.2016 and complaint of battery was filed on 10.12.2016 after ten months it is held that opposite parties No.1 to 3 are not under legal obligation to repair or replace the battery free of charges after the expiry of warranty period of battery.