Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 115.
Instituted on : 16.02.2017
Decided on : 08.10.2018.
Naveen(Aged 28 years) S/o Ramesh Kumar R/o Village-Bohar, Pana Bhopan Tehsil & District Rohtak. Mob 9034516175.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Darshan Communications, Gohana Stand Opp. Juneja Dawai Wala, Rohtak.
- Service Center:-B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Jain Mansion Huda Complex Rohtak-124001, Contact Center:-1800-3000-8282, 1800-266-8282.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Having its Registered office at A25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT.SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Krishan Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a Samsung J-7 Prime mobile phone from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.18800/- vide bill no.1915 dated 25.09.2016. That from the very beginning , the above said mobile phone is not working properly and is having hanging problem, receiver not work. That complainant deposited his mobile with the OP No.2 on 12.11.2016, 10.02.2017 but despite repeated repairs, defect has not been removed. That the respondents are legally bound to replace/repair the same but they are un-necessarily harassing the complainant and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.18800/- alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service and as such was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.03.2017 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 & 3 in its reply has submitted that the complainant had approached the OP on 12.11.2016 for hanging issue but no problem was found in the mobile set and the software was updated and the phone was delivered to the complainant. That again complainant contacted on 10.02.2017 for hanging issue and mike problem. But the engineer found that the unit was out of warranty due to mishandling on part of complainant and the complainant was told that the repair would be on chargeable basis but the complainant refused for the same. That there is no deficiency of service on the part of respondent No.2 & 3 and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile on 25.09.2016 and as per job sheet Ex.C2 defects appeared on 12.11.2016 i.e. just after two months of its purchase and thereafter defect appeared on 10.02.2017 as per job sheet Ex.C3 and the mobile is shown as under warranty but the opposite party demanded repair charges from the complainant within warranty period. As per contention of OPs, the mobile was out of warranty due to mishandling on the part of complainant. But in the absence of any technical report, OPs have failed to prove such mishandling of product. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they are liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 40% depreciation as the mobile has been used by the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 40% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.11280/- (Rupees eleven thousand two hundred eighty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 16.02.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile in question to the OPs/service centre at the time of payment by the OP No.3, if the same is in his possession.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
08.10.2018.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member
