BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

       DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

COMPLAINT NO.114/2017
Date of filing: 13/11/2017

Date: 23^rd day of June, 2018

   P r e  s e n t: 

01) Smt.Sharada.K.                                                    President…

     B.A.LL.B. (Spl) 

02) Smt. Sumangala.C.Hadli.                         Lady   Member…

                            B.A (Music)

                V/s

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT. SUMANGALA.C.HADLI, MEMBER

The Complainant filed this complaint u/sec. 12 of Consumer protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as Ops) to handover New Mobile Handset Samsung S-7 Edge, SM-G935-FD to the complainant or refund the amount Rs.55,000/- with 18% interest from the date of purchased to till realization. Rs.50,000/- compensation towards mental agony and harassments and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of this complaint etc.,

2.   Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The complainant Tousif Rangrej purchased a Samsung mobile from O.P. No.3 shop on 04/08/2016 paying Rs.55,000/- O.P. No.3 issued receipt dated 04/08/2016 for its 55,000/-. Some days after words problem stated etc., At the time of purchase O.P.No.1 submitted and also mentioned in guarantee card that there is one year warranty from the date of purchase.  The complainant informed regarding the problem of the mobile to the O.P.No.1 then the O.P.1 requested to the complainant to take the mobile to the service centre that is O.P.No.3 that is Balaji Technology, Bagalkot and also the O.P. assured the problem of the mobile solved O.P.No.3 service centre. Accordingly the complaint on 8/06/2017 gave his mobile for service, thereafter O.P.No.3 returned the mobile after some days to complainant stating that it was working properly, for some days it worked properly but afterwords the same problem arised. Then again the complainant insisted O.P.No.1 and again the O.P.1 suggested the complainant to approach O.P.No.3. When the complainant approached the O.P.3 narrated about the problem of the mobile but O.P.No.3 told that the problem in the mobile has not solved and they trial their level best. Than the complainant gave his mobile to the O.P.No.3 again for service and O.P. No.3 issued a job card on 03/08/2017.  But after that the complainant approached O.P.No.3 to take back his mobile but they told that the problem in the mobile is not solved.  O.P.No.3 demanded Rs.10,000/- for the repair but the complainant told them that mobile was given within the warranty period. So the repair should be done free of cost O.P.No.1 and 3 refused to repair the mobile free of cost. Therefore the complainant issued a legal notice through his advocate on 27/06/2017 stating replacement of the mobile or refund of Rs.55,000/- but the O.Ps. did not reply, therefore the complainant has approached this forum.

3. After receipt of notice, the OP No.1 and 3 remained absent and hence placed Exparte. OP No.2-Counsel present before the Forum and filed affidavit, objection and Written Arguments.

          4. Written Version of OP No.2 is as hereunder:

The answering OP submits the complaint is baseless, devoid of any merits whatsoever and without any cause of action whatsoever against answering OP. As such complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost in favour of answering OPs. O.P.2 further contended that the present complaint is filed without any just or reasonable basis, an abuse of the process of law as well as misuse of machinery provided for redressal of genuine grievances. Further O.P. submits the complainant admits that his mobile cover only one year warranty which period expired on 03/08/2017. In fact last visit to service is also on 03/08/2017. The present complaint is registered on 13/11/2017. On perusal of record it reveal that complaint is filed after lapse of 3 months from the date of expire of standard warranty period. O.P. submits complainant failed to produce standard warranty card to establish actual obligation of the company during the warranty period. O.P. further contended that warranty card company clearly stated that it will “repair free of charge any part or parts of the product, if the defect is due to the faculty material or workmanship”.  O.P. has admits as well as produced document to show that he visited service centre on 03/06/2017, in view of the job sheet it is clear that complainant faced certain issue only after laps of 10 months from the date of purchase and not from the day one as alleged in para 3 of the complaint. Further O.P. submits the allegation made in para-4 is not true and correct in full extent. Job sheet dated 03/08/2017, the service centre clearly marked as out-warranty in 7 row of warranty status column and mentioned Back Glass Damage in 10^th column. It is submitted in 5^th condition of service job sheet it is clearly mentioned “if product is found to be.. cracked or liquid logged, same will not be considered under warranty. In such a case customer will have to pay for the repair services or the product will be returned without repair”. O.P. denied the allegation made in para-5 of the complaint regarding not resolving complainant issue.  The answering O.P. submits not resolving complainant issue is due to adamant attitude of complainant in not accepting existence of physical damage to mobile and demanding FOC repair even though he is well aware that his issue is out of warranty and demanding FOC repair is contrary to 5th service contact. Allegation made in para-6 of the complaint is not true and correct to its full extent. O.P. submits service centre demanded certain amount since mobile in physically damaged as well as service issue is out warranty as per service contract and mobile is within warranty still customer is not entitled free service under all circumstances and more particularly as and when product is physically damaged and other allegations are denied. O.P-2 prays this Hon’ble Forum be please to reject complaint with exemplary cost in the ends of justice.

5.     The complainant has produced documents. The said documents are as follows:

1. Original bill given by O.P.No.3 dated 04/08/2016.

2. 2 bills/two job cards of service centre.

3. Copy of Legal notice,

4. Original Postal Receipt,

6.      After considering the material placed on record, the following points that would arise for our consideration.

1. Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant has entitled to get compensation?
3. What order?

7.    After considering the evidence tendered by both sides and on careful consideration of the arguments advanced by both sides our findings for the above points are as follows.

1. Affirmative,
2. Partly Affirmative,
3. As per final order.

R E A S O N S

8. POINT NO.1 and 2: The complainant has claimed that he purchased Samsung S7 Edge SM-G935FD mobile from the O.P. No.1 i.e. Ganesh Mobile Center, Bagalkot for a sum of Rs.55,000/- on 04/08/2016 and said hand set has defects. The complainant used the said mobile as per the instruction given by O.P. and instruction given in the manual. When the complainant used that mobile complainant faced problems in the using mobile on and often. The complainant brought this notice to O.Ps. and for which the O.P. instructed complainant to approach the company’s service centre that is O.P.3 and get rectify the problem. As per the instruction of O.P.1 the complainant approached O.P.3 on 08/06/2017 for repair of the said mobile hand set and O.P.3 returned mobile to the complainant stating that it was working properly, But the mobile after some days started problem of display lining and the complainant visited O.P.No.1 and the Opponent No.1 suggest the complainant to approach O.P.3 again the complainant on 03/08/2017 approached O.P.3 and narrated the problem of Mobile and O.P.3 told the problem of mobile was not solved and even the O.P.3 told the complainant they tried, there level best to solve the problem, the complainant gave his mobile for service to the O.P.3 and O.P.3 issued a job Card on 03/08/2017 after that on 08/08/2017 the complainant approached to take his mobile from O.P.3 till now mobile is not repaired.  Complainant approached the O.P.1 and 3 informed problem of mobile phone, but till today O.P.1 and 3 not bothered to solve the problem of Samsung S7 Edge SM-G935FD mobile and O.P.2 is a manufacture of the Samsung mobile. O.P.No.3 demanded Rs.10,000/- for the repair but the complainant told them that mobile was given within the warranty period.  Hence the complainant issue legal notice to the O.Ps. thereby calling upon the O.Ps. 1 to 3 to provide new mobile hand set or returned cost of the mobile with interest for legal notice also the O.Ps. neither replied nor replaced the mobile handset. Hence the complainant is constrained file this complaint.

9. O.P.2 has contended that the mobile is out of date of the warranty. Hence he is not responsible of the repair or replacement of the mobile. But either the warranty period the opponent has repaired the mobile and it was in under good condition etc.,    

10. There is a difference of signature of the complainant on the job card received by him. The O.Ps. have indirectly admitted that there is a fault in the mobile supplied by him. The citation produced by the opponent is not applicable to this case. The documents produced by the opponents are not satisfaction. There is definitely lapse on the part of the service given by them. Complainant produced Invoice bill of the O.P.  complainant has purchased Samsung S7 Edge SM-G935FD mobile from the O.P. No.1 i.e. Ganesh Mobile Center, Bagalkot for a sum of Rs.55,000/- on 04/08/2016. Perused of said complaint and all documents it is proved the O.P. has rendered deficiency in service to the complainant. Hence we answer to the point No.1 in affirmative. Point No.2; There is no doubt complainant so many time requested to O.P. to solve the problem of mobile. The said mobile did not work properly and evenafter repeated repair within the warranty period Ex.C-2 and for above document observed by this forum. O.P. fails to rectify the above said mobile.  In the light of our above said findings and documents the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of O.P. The OPs are liable to repair the said mobile handset, The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.3,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of this proceeding from the Ops. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in affirmative and Point No.2 in partly affirmative.

11) POINT NO:3 In the result, the complaint of the complainant is fit to be allowed in part. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

     Complainant’s complaint is allowed in part as follows;

1. The O.Ps jointly and severally are hereby directed to repair the mobile handset free of cost.
2. The OPs shall have to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
3. The Ops are directed to comply this order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to proceed the case against the Ops as per law.
4. Free copy of this order shall be sent to the parties immediately.

        (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 23^th day of June, 2018).