Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/525/2019

Sham Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Garg Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

12 Jan 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.525 of 2019

Date of Instt.:9.12.2019

Date of Decision: 12.01.2021.

 

Shyam Lal son of late Sh.Krishan Lal, resident of house no.77, village Begpur, P.O.Baraut, District Kaithal, at present residing at House no.535/2, Dogran Gate, Kaithal.                                                                                

                                                              …….Complainant.  

                                             Versus

 

1.Garg Mobile and Electronics, Opp. Yes Bank, Kaithal Road, Pehowa.

2.Samsung Care Centre (Samsung Mobile Service Centre), Dhand-Kurukshetra Road, Marwah Complex, Kaithal.

3. M/s  Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF, PH-V, Gurgaon- 122202.

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

 

Present:     Sh.Ashok  Kumar counsel for the complainant.

                OP No.1 and 2 ex parte.

                Sh.Shekhar Kapoor Advocate for OP No.3.

 ORDER

              This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Shyam Lal against Garg Mobiles  etc., the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased Phone set make Samsung J6+ Blue mobile phone, IMEI No.352682104796874  from OP No.1 and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- vide bill No.557 dated 27.12.2018 with one year warranty. After few days of its purchase, the said mobile phone started giving problems like automatic switch off, hanging on, not proper battery backup, tough not working properly etc. In this context, the complainant contacted OP No.2. i.e. service centre of OP No.3, who returned the  mobile after two hours  and demanded Rs.3183/-  upon which the complainant asked that the mobile phone is within one year warranty period, so the same be repaired free of costs, but the OP no.3 refused to repair the phone free of costs and became adamant for payment of amount and ultimately the complainant had to pay the said amount. The OP No.3 issued a tax invoice on even date but even then the  phone was not working properly and was having the same problems.  The complainant visited the OP No.3 various times and requested to rectify the problems of the phone but nothing has been done. However, it is pertinent to mention that the OP No.3 only issued  job sheet/invoice  for the first time and thereafter never issued any document. It seems that the said mobile phone is having manufacturing defect and the OPs are not removing the  said defect of the phone and illegally received the amount of Rs.3183/- from the complainant. The complainant requested the OP No.3 to refund the amount of Rs.3183/- illegally received from him and to replace the mobile phone with a new one but the OPs refused to do so, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and prayed refund of Rs.3183/- illegally taken from the complainant , to refund Rs.15000/- i.e. cost of the mobile phone  alongwith compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP No.1 & 2 were duly served but  they failed to appear and contest the complaint. Therefore, OP No.1 & 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.01.2020.

4.             OP no.3 has submitted that  in fact, the complainant  in  regard to complaint regarding the unit in question approached to the service centre on 11.03.2019 vide job sheet No.4278881583 and reported display damage problem in the said unit. The engineer of the service centre duly received the unit and checked  and found that the display  is  damaged. The engineer issued a job sheet of  out of warranty and told that the unit  cannot be considered under warranty due to violation of condition of warranty i.e. damage due to mishandling on part of complainant and the repair of unit shall be on chargeable basis and accordingly an  estimate of repair was provided to the complainant. The complainant got agreed for payment of  repair charge and the display of the unit was replaced and the unit became OK  and the complainant took the delivery of unit to this full satisfaction after payment of charges of repair. After that no issue has been reported by the complainant and  thereafter the answering OP came to know about the present complainant. It is submitted that the physical damages are not covered under the warranty period and the same cannot be termed as manufacturing defects. That being so, no deficiency of services can be attributed on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

5.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and closed his evidence.

6.             The OP No.3 in support of his case has tendered documents Ex.RW/1 to Ex.RW1-B and tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R-3 and closed its evidence No.3.

 

7.             The OP No.3 in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW2/A and tendered documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-8 and closed its evidence.

 

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

9.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant purchased a purchased Phone set make Samsung J6+ Blue mobile phone, IMEI No.352682104796874  from OP No.1 and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- vide bill No.557 dated 27.12.2018 with one year warranty with the assurance of OP No.1.After few days of its purchase, the said mobile phone started giving problems like automatic switch off, hanging on, not proper battery backup, tough not working properly etc. It is argued that in this context, the complainant contacted OP No.2  i.e. service centre of OP No.3,  on 12.03.2019, who returned the  mobile after two hours  and demanded Rs.3183/-  upon which the complainant asked that the mobile phone is within one year warranty period, so the same be repaired free of costs, but the OP no.3 refused to repair the phone free of costs and became adamant for payment of amount and ultimately the complainant had to pay the said amount in forced circumstances. The OP No.3 issued a tax invoice on even date but even then the  phone was not working properly and was having the same problems.  The complainant visited the OP No.3 various times and requested to rectify the problems of the phone but nothing has been done. However, it is pertinent to mention that the OP No.3 only issued  job sheet/invoice  for the first time and thereafter never issued any document. It seems that the said mobile phone is having manufacturing defect and the OPs are not removing the  said defect of the phone and illegally received the amount of Rs.3183/- from the complainant. The complainant requested the OP No.3 to refund the amount of Rs.3183/- illegally received from him and to replace the mobile phone with a new one but the OPs refused to do so, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and prayed refund of Rs.3183/- illegally taken from the complainant , to refund Rs.15000/- i.e. cost of the mobile phone  alongwith compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.

10.            Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP no. 3 has reiterated all the averments mentioned in his respective reply. It is argued  that in  regard to complaint regarding the unit in question, the complainant  approached to the service centre on 11.03.2019 vide job sheet No.4278881583 and reported display damage problem in the said unit. The engineer of the service centre duly received the unit and checked  and found that the display  is  damaged. The engineer issued a job sheet of  out of warranty and told that the unit  cannot be considered under warranty due to violation of condition of warranty i.e. damage due to mishandling on part of complainant and the repair of unit shall be on chargeable basis and accordingly an  estimate of repair was provided to the complainant. The complainant got agreed for payment of repair charge and the display of the unit was replaced and the unit became OK and the complainant took the delivery of unit to this full satisfaction after payment of charges of repair and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

11.            From the copy of bill Ex.C-1 purchase of mobile phone for Rs.15000/- by the complainant from OP No.1 is not in dispute. This fact is also not disputed by the OPs. As per complainant there was problem of hanging, switching off etc. in the mobile phone and same was not removed by the OPs.  As per OPs, vide job sheet dated 11.3.2019  display of the mobile phone was damaged and the said problem is not  covered under the warranty conditions. The complainant has also paid Rs.3183/- for the repairs of the mobile phone but the said problem has not yet been removed by the OPs. In the document “ acknowledgement of service request Ex.R-2 under the column of “repair description, nothing is no mention that display was damaged. Moreover, the mobile phone is still within the warranty period and as such having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be fully met if the OPs are directed to refund 70% amount of the cost of the mobile phone subject to the condition that the complainant shall return the original mobile phone alongwith the accessories to the OP No.3.

 

12.            In view of our aforesaid discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.3 to refund the 70% amount of the cost of the mobile phone to the complainant. The complainant shall return the original mobile phone alongwith accessories to the OP no.3.  The OP No.3 is  further directed to make the compliance of this order within a  period of thirty days from the date of from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. The complaint qua  OP No.1 and 2 stands dismissed. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 12.01.2021.                                                  (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                             President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

 Member                              Member.