IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Smti S.Bora
Member(F)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
Sri P.Das
Member(Gen.)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.17/2016
1.Sri Lintumoni Das : Complainant
S/o: Sri Prabhat Ch. Das
Resident of Lalmati, Tezpur
P.S & P.S: Tezpur,
Dist: Sonitpur,Assam
Vs.
1.Darang Cycle Co. : Opp parties
Main Road, Tezpur
2.Star Communication (Tezpur,AS)
Gionee Servicing Centre,
Main Road, Tezpur
3.Gionee Head Office in India
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044
Appearance:
Sri Chironjib Ghosh, Adv. : For the Complainant
Sri Paramananda Kakoty,Adv. : For the Opp. party No.1
Sri Sudesh Kr.Singh,Adv. : For the Opp. party No.2
Date of argument : 21/08/17, 21/09/17&09/10/17
Date of Judgment : 23-10-2017
J U D G M E N T
- The facts disclosed under the complaint, in brief, are that a few days after purchase of the mobile handset in question on 27-08-2015 from the opposite party No.1, the same developed defect in the inbuilt camera and in charging. As instructed by the seller, opposite party No.1, the complainant placed the handset before the authorized Service Centre, opposite party No.2,when allegedly the lens and battery of the handset was changed. Another problem in the handset, over its slow operation and charging problem again developed after some days of its use and allegedly the sub PCB was changed by the opposite party No.2. But the problem having persisted and upon approaching the opposite party No.1 to properly correct the defects, this time the opposite party no.1 allegedly ill-treated the complainant and ousted the complainant from their shop premises. Alleging inherent defect in the mobile handset and gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant is thus, before the Forum praying a direction for total relief of Rs.1.00 lakhs from the opposite parties under different heads as mentioned under the complaint petition.
- Opposite parties except opposite party No.3 contested the case by filing their respective’s written version. Notice was duly served upon the opposite party No.3. But it has preferred to have judgment ex parte. Whereas, the opposite party No.1 under its main plea of being simply a seller has denied any deficiency on its part and prayed emancipation from the purview of the proceeding, the opposite party No.2 on the otherhand, had in main, contended of liquid contents inside the handset as the core cause of problem in the handset not coming under the Warranty cover for free repair as sought for by the complainant. Denying any deficiency on its part, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
- Complainant tendered his evidence-in-chief on affidavit exhibiting few documents thereunder. Whereas the opposite party No.1 declined to examine any witness on its side, the opposite party No.2 examined one witnesses on affidavit exhibiting few documents thereunder. The witnesses on either side were cross-examined.
We have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record including the written arguments filed by the parties and draw the following points for determination of the case.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
(i)Whether the mobile handset in question had inherent defect ?
(ii)Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?
(iii)Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for ?
DECISION ON THE POINTS:
4.Point No.(i): We have gone through the materials available on record. There is no dispute that the mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 on 27-8-2015 and within the period of coverage of Warranty, the handset developed problem of “Software update,
Hang while using multimedia” as reflected in Ext-2(Service Jobsheet) issued by the opposite party No.2.
5. It is an admitted fact that the handset was attended more than once within the period of Warranty by the authorized Service Centre.
6. The opposite party No.2, through its written version and by cross-examining the Complainant had elicited that on each and every occasions the handset was properly attended free of cost. But after 12-05-2016, when the handset was deposited with the opposite party No.2 for the fourth time with complaint that charging section of the set was not working at all, opposite party’s service engineer attended the handset and found water inside the handset which adversely affected the main PCBA.
7. Opposite party No.2 through its witness Sri Papon Sarkar exhibited two photographs claiming the same to be the photographs of mobile handset showing accumulation of carbon due to water contents inside. Ext-“B” and “C” are those photographs.
8. Our microscopic examination of Ext-“B” and “C” leads us to hold that the said documents,(Photographs) do not bear any authenticity that the same are the photographs of disputed mobile handset. That apart, Ext”B” and “C” do not bear any endorsement as to in whose presence the same were taken or who had taken the same. In absence of any material to connect the photographs with the disputed handset, both Ext “B” and “C” in our opinion, have no evidentiary value at all.
At this juncture we find it expedient to consider the documents (Service Jobsheets) submitted by the opposite party No.2 along with its written version.
9. It is worthwhile to mention here that neither the complainant nor the opposite parties, more particularly opposite party No.2 has exhibited those documents. Hence, we have marked the said documents as document X,Y and Z for better identification.
10. To arrive at just decision of the matters in controversy, Document”Z” is found to be most important. Document “Z” is service Jobsheet dtd 12-05-2016.As per complaint of the customer, as reflected in Document”Z” the handset was not “Charging”. According to the opposite party No.2 said problem was attended and main PCBA of the handset was changed. Such claim of changing PCBA has however, not found its record in Document”Z”. After few days complainant again visited the opposite party No.2 with same problem of the handset not charging/not functioning at all. When checked, the handset was found with liquid content inside which, adversely damaged the main PCBA. Complainant received back the handset without repair, as the defect found, did not fall within Warranty coverage.
11. During cross-examination by the opposite party No.2 complainant stated “It is not a fact that the mobile handset was dismantled in front of me and one person Sandip by name stated to me that water had entered into the main PCB of the handset. In fact complaint of water contents inside the handset was stated to me much later after the opposite party No.2 retained the handset for quite sometime”.
12. Now question arises whether water content was detected on the day of its deposit to the opposite party No.2 or detected after few days of retaining the same in the service Centre. Opposite party No.2, without assigning any reason,
failed to examine Sandip who had disclosed about having water inside the handset .
13. From our above discussion, we have found that the complainant visited the opposite party No.2 repeatedly with the handset with complaint of not charging in short interval. In view of the above coupled with the fact of non-examination of Sandip, we are of the considered opinion that objection raised by the opposite party No.2 is not sustainable. The service Jobsheets confirmed that the complainant had to attend the Service Centre for defects developed in the handset after four months of its purchase. The opposite party No.2 admitted that the defects developed had to be attended by it. Since facts as gathered from our above discussion speak for themselves, so under the circumstances, in absence of any expert report, we are of the opinion that the mobile handset got some inherent defect.
The Point No.(i) is decided accordingly.
14.Point No.(ii) : Evidence of the complainant makes it abundantly clear that the opposite party No.2, except after 12-05-2016, attended the handset on each and every occasion free of cost. According to the opposite party No.2, on detection of water inside the handset, the complainant was made known that the defect did not fall under Warranty, so, handset was repairable only on payment.
15. Having regard to the entire facts discussed above, we have found no deficiency on the part of the opposite party No.2.On the otherhand, opposite party No.1 is found to be a seller only. So, opposite party No.1 being seller is not liable for any service of repair of the handset.
The point No.(ii) is decided in the negative accordingly.
16.Point No.(iii): Complainant has prayed refund of Rs.8700/- as the price of the mobile handset, compensation of Rs.50,000/-for loss of business and Rs.40,000/- for mental pain, agony suffered along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-
17. In view of discussion made in deciding point No.(i), the complainant is entitled to get replaced his handset with a new one free from any sort of defect. Materials available on record clearly reveal that the complainant failed to prove his entitlement of Rs.50,000/- against loss of business and Rs.40,000/- against mental pain and agony etc. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that justice would meet both ends if opposite party No.3, being the manufacturer of the handset is directed to pay Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation in the case.
O R D E R
In the result, the complaint stands allowed against opposite party No.3 with cost. The opposite party No.1, being the seller of the mobile handset having inherent defect shall ensure replacement of the mobile handset with a new one
free from any sort of defect. The opposite party No.3 shall pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousand)only as compensation and cost to the complainant. The opposite party No.1 is directed to comply with the award within 30 (thirty) days of receipt of copy of the judgment and order. The opposite party No.1 shall however be entitled to recover the indemnity value of the award hereunder in any and all kinds from the manufacturer of the mobile handset.
A copy of this judgment each be sent to the opposite party No.1 and 3.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 23rd day of October, 2017.
Dictated and corrected by: Pronounced and delivered
( A.Devee)
President (A. DEVEE)
District Consumer D.R Forum,Sonitpur President
Tezpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sonitpur,Tezpur
We agree:- (P.DAS) (SMT.S.BORA)
Member Member
