O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile handset make Samsung Galaxy Note 3 (R Gold Black) IMEI Bearing No.351540060518073 SM-N 9000BDEINS for a sum of Rs.40,000/- + Rs.5,000/- @ 12% as VAT charges from OP-3 on 11.06.2014. It is alleged that aforementioned mobile hand set was found defective and has not been giving satisfactory service since the date of its purchase. It is alleged by the complainant was having of complaint of non-connectivity and dropping of signals as a frequent defect in the mobile handset in question. It is alleged that the defective mobile hand set was sent to Service Centre for service on 24.9.2014 and again on 1.10.2014 but they failed to rectify the defects. It is alleged that the complainant made many complaints via e-mails, writing and telephonically but all in vain. It is alleged that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. It is alleged that the complainant sent a legal notice to the OP on 31.10.2014. On these facts complainant has filed the present complaint on 16.12.2014 praying that OPs be directed to remove the defects in the mobile handset in question due to their deficiency in service, or replace it with a new set or pay the cost of mobile phone, and Rs.5,00,000/- due to financial loss, injury or detriment to his interest occasioned by willful negligence.
2. OP-1 & 2 appeared only one hearing i.e. on 6.2.2015 but they did not file their written statements, therefore, they were preceded as Ex-parte on 30.3.2015. OP-3 appeared and filed its written statement. In its written statement OP-3 has not disputed that complainant purchased a mobile handset make Samsung Galaxy Note 3 (R Gold Black) IMEI Bearing No.351540060518073 SM-N 9000BDEINS for a total sum of Rs.45,000/- from OP-3 on 11.06.2014. It is stated that at the time of purchase the handset was handed over to the complainant in a sealed pack box after which it was opened by the complainant he was satisfied as to functioning of the said mobile handset. It is stated that at the time of sale of the mobile phone, the complainant was informed about the terms and conditions. It is stated that after understanding all the terms and conditions and being satisfied by it, the complainant purchased the said mobile handset. It is stated that as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the invoice, the service of mobile phones/accessories would be as per the usual warranty terms specified by the manufacturer; therefore the OP-3 is not a necessary party. It is stated that OP-3 is merely a shopkeeper who deals in the mobile handset only and is not a manufacturer. It is further stated that the complaint of the complainant against the OP-3 is false, frivolous and baseless. It is submitted that, therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP-3 and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence reiterating all the facts made in the complaint. On the other hand Mr. Praveen Juneja, Director of OP-3 has filed affidavit alongwith documents in support of its case. The complainant has filed copies of various e-mails, correspondence with OP-1 whereby he has brought to its notice the problems being faced by him. The 1st e-mail was made on 13.9.2014 and on the advice of OP-1 the mobile handset was deposited with the OP-1 Service Centre for repairs on 24.9.2014. On 26.9.2014 another e-mail was sent about the defect to which the OP-1 replied that the mobile handset is under observation. Vide another e-mail dated 27.9.2014, OP-1 informed the complainant that his request for exchange of the mobile handset cannot be acceded to. The mobile handset was again deposited with the Authorised Service Centre on 1.10.2014 as is apparent from the job sheet filed by the complainant. From the e-mails made by the complainant and replies given by the OP-1, it is apparent and evident that the mobile handset was having problems and the same were not rectified by the OPs. OP-1 vide its e-mail dated 17.10.2014 has stated that their Engineers have not found any defect in the unit and it can be repaired as per warranty policy. Though the e-mails suggest that the mobile handset was not defective but OP-1 has chosen not to file any reply to the complaint or the report of their Technical Expert to support the plea taken by it in the e-mails.
4. In view of above we find that the mobile handset was having problems since from beginning which were not rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant, despite the same having been given for repairs twice. Therefore, all the three OPs are jointly and severally liable to refund the product amount i.e. Rs.40,000/- to the complainant, he shall return the mobile handset along with accessories to the OPs, if still not in the custody of the Service Centre.
5. Complainant is further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment which amount shall also include cost of litigation. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced on this 28th day of January, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
