DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.135 of 156
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 06-07-2016
DATE OF ORDER: 04-01-2017
Aakansha daughter of Dr. Anil Sharam, resident of Kirti Nagar near Canal Rest House, Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- M/s C.P. Phone Mart, near Bharat Laboratory, Rohtak Gate, Bhiwani through its Proprietor-Mobile No. 9813290385.
- Samsung Care Centre, 1st Floor, in the Ganpat Rai Hospital’s Shops, Opposite Nehru Park, Bhiwani through its Proprietor.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. A25 Ground Floor, Front Tower Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Present:- Sh. Kuldeep Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for OP no. 1.
Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 3.
OP no. 2 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 10.09.2015 she had purchased one mobile of Samsung for a consideration of Rs. 14,900/- from OP no. 1 vide cash bearing No. 3258 with one year guarantee. It is alleged that after about 7-8 months of its purchase, the mobile set starting hanging and also giving problem while using internet. It is alleged that he visited the shop of OP no. 1 and care centre of OP no. 2 for 3-4 times with the request to replace the touch screen of the mobile set, as the same has been broken due to fault of the respondents, but the touch screen of mobile set was not replaced by Ops. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops she has to suffer mental agony and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, she has to file the present complaint.
2. OP no. 1 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the OP no. 1 is the seller of the mobile handset which is manufactured by OP no. 3 and after the sale of the mobile handset, the Ops no. 2 & 3 are liable for the warranty of the mobile handset for any defect. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 has failed to come present. Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.08.2016.
4. Opposite party no. 3 filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is submitted that the answering respondent as a matter of policy issues prompt after sales service in warranty period provided no outside interference/repair has been done to the Handset/TV/Refrigerator and the same was not mishandled but no such service was issued by the respondents since outside interference/repair was evident from the product thereby breaking the terms of the warranty provided. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to prove the alleged technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence document Annexure C-1 alongwith supporting affidavit.
6. In reply thereto, the counsel for OP no. 3 has tendered into evidence document Annexure R-1 alongwith supporting affidavit.
7. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the mobile handset of the complainant was giving the problem while using the Internet. Therefore, the complainant visited the service centre of the company at Bhiwani. The employee of OP no. 2 while taking the mobile handset the same was fallen from his hand and its touch screen was broken. The OP no. 2 was requested to replace the screen of the mobile but he refused. The complainant visited the Ops several times to get repaired her mobile handset.
9. Learned counsel for the OP no. 1 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the OP no. 1 is the seller of the mobile handset which is manufactured by OP no. 3 and after the sale of the mobile handset, the Ops no. 2 & 3 are liable for the warranty of the mobile handset for any defect.
10. Learned counsel for OP no. 3 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the allegations made by the complainant are false and baseless. The complainant had approached the OP no. 2 with the broken screen of the mobile handset. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty the mobile handset is appeared by warranty due to the mishandling of the same of the mobile handset can be repaired on chargeable basis.
11. The mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant vide bill dated 10.09.2015 for a sum of Rs. 14,900/-. The mobile handset was within warranty when the defect in the mobile handset and broken screen of the same was reported by the complainant to the Ops. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops no. 2 & 3 to replace the broken screen of the mobile handset within 30 days and deliver the mobile handset to the complainant in working condition from the date when it is deposited by the complainant for repair. The complainant is directed to deposit her mobile handset with OP no. 2 for repairs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum
Dated:.04-01-2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member
