Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
- Sh. Jasdeep Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11, 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant has purchased mobile phone Samsung N920 64 GB IMEI No. 355011070032147 from opposite party No.1 for Rs. 51,000/- on 11.11.2015. Opposite party No.2 is manufacturer of the mobile while opposite party No.3 is authorized service centre duly appointed by opposite party No.2. The said mobile phone developed some defect in its display after four months of purchase. There appeared a bright spot near the left hand top corner of the screen. Immediately the matter was reported to opposite party No.3 . Opposite party No.3 after inspecting the mobile returned the same to the complainant by saying that the defect would automatically get removed with the passage of time. After some days, it was observed that the spot has turned purple and was expanding its area. Complainant again reported the matter with opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 after inspection told the complainant that since the defect was in the display screen, therefore, before attending to it, the matter was required to be reported to opposite party No.2 for approval. The complainant asked for issuing of job sheet which the opposite party No.3 has declined by saying that the job sheet can be issued only after obtaining approval from opposite party No.2. However, they gave reference No. of QNA which was 7970067 which was written by opposite party No.3 Mr. Vimal dated 24.8.2016. The complainant visited opposite party No.3 several times for issuance of job sheet and removal of defect but he opposite party No.3 put off the matter on one pretext or the other . Lastly opposite party No.3 refused to repair the mobile phone. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
- Opposite parties be directed to return Rs. 51000/- i.e. cost of mobile phone alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from date of purchase till realization ;
- Compensation of Rs. 20000/- be also paid to the complainant.
- Opposite parties be also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 11000/-.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the handset in question is perfectly working as it has never been submitted with opposite party No.3 with any kind of problem till date . As the complainant has concealed true facts from this Forum, he is not entitled for any relief ; that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint as there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The answering opposite party or its service centre has never denied after sale services and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant subject to warranty terms and conditions. There is no inherent defect in the mobile nor there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ; that the complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central approved laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. In the absence of any expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant is not entitled for refund of price of handset. The answering opposite party is only liable to repair/rectify the product in question subject to warranty terms and conditions if complainant report problem within warranty period . The complainant has failed to prove on record that the handset in question cannot be repaired , as such he is not entitled for replacement or refund of price. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.1 did not opt to put in appearance and as such it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. However, opposite party No.3 did not file written version after appearance and it was also ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In his bid to prove the case Sh.G.S.Sachdeva,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A , copy of QNA receipt Ex.C-1, copy of invoice dated 11.11.2015 Ex.C-2, copy of visit receipt to Samsung Care Centre dated 24.8.2016 Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
5. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Mrs.Preeti Mahajan,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the .
7. From the perusal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased one mobile phone Samsung N920 64 GB EMEI No. 355011070032147 vide invoice Ex.C-2. It was the case of the complainant that only after four months of purchase, the mobile phone developed some defect in its display as there appeared a bright spot near the left hand top corner of the screen. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and reported the defect, who after inspecting the mobile phone, returned the same to the complainant by telling that the defect would automatically get removed with the passage of time. However, the said defect expanding its area. Again the complainant reported the defect to opposite party No.3, who after inspection told the complainant that since the defect is in the display screen, therefore, the matter was required to be reported to opposite party No.2 for approval. However, opposite party No.3 did not issue any job sheet even on asking of the complainant but gave a reference No. of QNA 7970067 dated 24.8.2016 which was duly written by Mr. Vimal, principal officer of opposite party No.3, copy of QNA receipt accounts for Ex.C-1 on record. Thereafter the complainant visited opposite party No.3 several times for the issuance of job sheet as well as for removal of defect but the opposite parties refused to repair the mobile phone. However, the case of the opposite party is that the handset of the complainant is perfectly working as it has never been submitted with opposite party No.3 with any kind of problem till date. The contention of the complainant that he has submitted copy of QNA receipt Ex.C-1 regarding the repair of the mobile hand set as the opposite party has not issued any job sheet despite making several requests, cannot be admitted as correct because the opposite party denied the assertion of the complainant in this respect. But nevertheless the opposite party is still ready to repair/rectify the product in question subject to warranty terms and conditions.
8. As such, we hold that all the opposite parties are liable to repair the mobile phone to the satisfaction of the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of copy of order . In case the mobile phone is found to be irreparable , then the opposite parties are directed to refund the sale price of the mobile phone to the tune of Rs. 51000/- jointly, severally & co-extensively. Besides that complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs. 2000/-. Opposite parties are given one month’s time for complying with the order ; failing which , amount awarded shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of receipt of copy of the order until full and final recovery. The complaint stands allowed accordingly. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 6.2.2017
/R/
