21 Nov 2023 10:00 AM GMT
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Fire Boltt and its Distributor, Savex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. liable for their failure to replace defective headphones, well within the warranty period. The District Commission ordered them to jointly...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Fire Boltt and its Distributor, Savex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. liable for their failure to replace defective headphones, well within the warranty period. The District Commission ordered them to jointly replace the headphones, and pay Rs. 1,000/- compensation and Rs. 1,000 legal costs.
Shruti Garg (“Complainant”) purchased a pair of headphones from Savex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (“Distributor”), manufactured by Fire Boltt (“Manufacturer”) for Rs. 2599/- with a warranty period of one year. However, after a short time, the headphones stopped working. Subsequently, the Complainant raised this issue with the Manufacturer via email and it responded by asserting that the malfunction was attributable to a problem with the jack of the headphones, a component purportedly not covered under the warranty. Despite the Complainant's persistent efforts, the Manufacturer refused to replace the headphones. Therefore, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”).
The Manufacturer contended that while the main device, i.e., the headphones, carried a 12-month warranty, certain accessories such as Bluetooth and the jack were only warranted for 3 months. The terms of this warranty were asserted to be delineated in the warranty policy. Moreover, the Manufacturer argued that the Complainant failed to provide any supporting documentation or reports from authorized experts demonstrating a manufacturing defect in the headphones. Thus, in the absence of conclusive evidence, the Complainant's demand for replacement or repair was unwarranted.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission noted that the headphones stopped working within the warranty period and the Manufacturer declined to replace or repair the headphones, asserting that the headphones were working properly when they were checked. However, both the Distributor and the Manufacturer failed to present any opinion or report to falsify the allegations of the Complainant. Further, the District Commission found the headphones well within the warranty period when the Complainant raised her grievances.
Consequently, the District Commission ruled in favour of the complainant and ordered the Distributor and the Manufacturer to replace the headphones with a new unit. Further, it directed them to pay a compensation of Rs.1000/- to the complainant for mental agony and Rs. 1000/- for the litigation costs incurred by her.
Case Title: Shruti Garg vs Fire Boltt and others
Case No.: CC/614/2021
Advocates for the Complainant: Vijay Kumar Agarwal
Advocate for the Respondent: A.P.S. Rana
Click Here To Read/Download Order