Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 481.
Instituted on : 18.08.2017.
Decided on : 07.08.2019.
Ajit Narwal s/o Sh. Rajender Singh r/o Village Rithal, Distt. Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Concept Retail, 728C, First Floor, Old DLF Colony, Sunder Singh Marg, Sector-14, Gurugram through its proprietor.
- B2X Service Centre Samsung Customer Care, Jain Mansion, Near Gymkhana Club, HUDA Complex Rohtak, through its Manager.
- Mobile Phone Company, Samsung India Electronics Ltd., Head Office 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre Golf Course Road, Sector-73, DLF Sector-43, Gurugram-122002 throgh Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Sandeep Hooda, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party No. 1 & 2 already exparte.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No. 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased a handset of mobile phone make Samsung Model No.J2 Galaxy, from the respondent no.1 vide bill no.FOQ9BHR17-245 through Flipkart dated 10.05.2016 for Rs.7590/-. That the phone is not functioning properly from the very beginning and it has having problems like display, charging battery and overheating problem. That complainant visited the opposite party No.2 and they kept the mobile phone with them. But till today, said mobile is in the possession of opposite party No.2.That complainant regularly visited the office of opposite party No.2 but they told that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set which cannot be repaired. The complainant requested the opposite parties, number of times to replace the mobile phone, but all in vain. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to return back the amount of Rs.7590/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant, as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party no.1 through registered post not received back and notice sent to opposite party no.2 was received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 & 2 and as such opposite party No. 1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.09.l2017 of this Forum.
3. Opposite party No. 3 in its reply has submitted that the complainant in regard to his complaint regarding the unit in question, approached to the service centre of answering respondent on 31.08.2016 vide job sheet no.4220682082 and reported LC Crack problem in his unit. The engineer of the service center checked the unit and found that the unit is damaged(i.e. LCD Crack) due to negligence/mishandling on the part of complainant. The engineer told the complainant that the unit cannot be considered under warranty as the unit is damaged due to negligence on the part of complainant and the unit shall be repaired on chargeable basis. When the complainant agreed for paid repair and the unit of the complainant got deposited for repair accordingly. After the unit got repaired, the officials of service center contacted to complainant and informed that the unit was repaired and ready for delivery, but the complainant refused to take the delivery of unit. That opposite party also sent a letter dated 03.12.2018 to the complainant but he did not collect the repaired unit. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has made a statement that complaint already filed on behalf of the complainant be read in evidence , tendered document Ex.C1 and closed his evidence on dated 16.05.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R5 and has closed his evidence on dated 23.07.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that he had purchased the mobile on 10.05.2016 and the same become defective within short period and he requested the opposite parties to remove the defect but the same could not be repaired by the opposite parties till date and the mobile in question is in the custody of opposite parties. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the opposite party No.3 is that the complainant contacted the service centre on 31.08.2016 vide job sheet no.4220682082 and reported LC Crack problem in his unit but after checking the unit, it was found that the same was not repairable under warranty due to mishandling/negligence on the part of complainant. The unit was repaired on chargeable basis but the complainant did not collect the same.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the present complaint was filed on 18.08.2017 whereas the respondent officials have placed on record document Ex.R5 dated 03.12.2018. Through this document respondent officials requested the complainant to collect the repaired phone from the answering opposite parties and if the complainant fails to collect the same, in that situation, the respondents were not liable for any further damage. The document Ex.R5 itself shows that the mobile was repaired by the respondent without any charge. The complaint was filed on 18.08.2017, the mobile was purchased on 10.05.2016 and as per complainant, he approached the respondent no.2 i.e. service centre in the month of August 2016 regarding the repair of mobile. Whereas, the respondent officials wrote a letter to the complainant on 03.12.2018 to pick-up the phone i.e. after more than 2 years which shows a great deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 to refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.7590/-(Rupees seven thousand five hundred ninety only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 18.08.2017 till its realization and also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The mobile set in question is already in the possession of opposite party No.2.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
07.08.2019.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
