Haryana

Ambala

CC/191/2018

Sheela Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Khurana Mobile Shop - Opp.Party(s)

13 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        : 191 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution         : 13.06.2018

                                                          Date of decision    : 13.03.2019

 

 

 

Sheela Devi W/O Sh. Ram Lal, R/o H.No.1895-1896, Housing Board Colony, Sector-9, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.       Khurana Mobile Shop, Manav  Chowk, Ambala City. Authorised  Dealr  of Samsung Mobiles.

2.       Samsung Authorised Service Center,  Managed By:-Kohli Telecom,  374-A, Prem Nagar, Near Gurudwara Sahib, Ambala City.

3.       Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd. Having its Registered Office at:-A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044,

 

         ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

                    Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                  

                            

Present:       Sh. Deepak Kumar Choudhary, counsel for complainant.

OP No.1 Ex Parte v.o.d. 30.08.2018.

Sh.Rajiv Sachdeva, counsel for OP Nos.2 &3.

 

 

 Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

 

Complainant has filed this compliant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ops’) praying for issuance of  following directions to them:-

1. To replace the mobile of the complainant with a new one of the same quality/make or to refund the total cost of purchase with interest @18% p.a. from the date of its purchase.
2. To pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation/ damages for causing mental harassment, agony and financial losses.
3. To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigations costs.

 

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Samsung  Mobile Model Galaxy J5 Prime Dual SIM, vide bill no.3354 on 21.06.2017 and bearing IMEI No.358213/08/206629/8, IMEI No.358214/08/206629/6 from the OP No.1 for Rs. 13,500/- and gave a warranty of one year against the manufacturing defects. The complainant has faced many problems  with the handset after sometime from the date of purchase as the mobile handet  is not running properly and is having some manufacturing defects i.e. automatic operation of mobile, many applications open and close automatically in the same time, touching problem(Hard touch) and is having hanging problem during operation of mobile.  In the month of November, 2017, complainant approached the OP No.1, who told him to approach OP No.2. The OP No.2 repaired the handset but did not issue any receipt or job sheet. The problem in said mobile was not properly cured and she again approached  to OP No.2 on 31.01.2018 for the same problem and customer executive of the OP No.2 namely Ms.Neha, updating the software of mobile in question and after updating the software, the complainant  was assured  that said problems are removed and would not arise again in future. Even after, updating/repairing of the handset, the problem remains intact and started giving more problems i.e. more heating during operation and charging of mobile, very low battery backup, many times tell number busy to others and many times call not connected in the said mobile. The complainant again approached to OP No.2 on 10.03.2018 and Ms. Neha took her mobile set andshe instead of issuing a job sheet, she gave a visiting car of the OP No.2 by mentioning the model number of mobile set and by putting her signatures on it and asked to the complainant that come after some hours to take back her phone. The complainant took the said mobile from her and used it for about two month but it again started giving same problems i.e. automatic airplane mode on, automatic location mode on, automatic Bluetooth mode on, automatic cal receive by touching by phone to come out from the pocket. On 30.04.2018 the complainant lodged a complaint at the customer care no. Which was attended by Mr. Asandh who gave a reference  no. 8429553435 and told the complainant to deposit the mobile with OP No.2 and take the job sheet. On 05.05.2018, the complainant approached OP No.2 and handed over her mobile set to Ms.Anjali Sharma who told her that mobile has software problem and she cannot issue any job sheet for the said problems and gave her a visiting card by writing model number of the mobile and putting her signatures on it. On 05.05.2018 in the evening, the complainant went to the OP No.2 to take her phone. After using the mobile for some times, it again started giving same problems.  In the month of May, 2018 complainant took her mobile set to OP No.2 for its repair. Then the mechanic of the OP No.2 told her that the mobile is beyond repair as it is having manufacturing defect.  A legal notice dated 23.05.2018 was served upon the Ops but no reply was given by them. The Ops by not rectifying the defects of the mobile set have committed in deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.     

2.                          Registered notice issued to OP No.1 but none has turned up on it behalf, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 30.08.2018.  Upon notice, OP No.2 and 3 appeared through counsel and OP No.3 filed a written version. The learned counsel has made a statement on 05.10.2018 that the written version filed by the OP No.3 be read on the part of OP No.2 also. In the written version, the OP No.3 has taken the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable, no territorial jurisdiction, not come with clean hands before the Forum. On merits, it is stated that the unit is repairable but the complainant instead getting it repaired wants to get it replaced with the new one or to get refund of the same. OP has an online system and as per the record, no call has been received from the complainant. However, the complainant visited the service centre of OP No.2 and reported some issues in the unit. The engineer told the complainant that the mobile needs to be examined thoroughly, but the complainant did not agree to even wait for a minute even and without any reason, started demanding replacement/ refund for her unit and not let the engineer to examine the same. The officials of service centre requested the complainant to give some time to check the unit and to generate a job sheet but she did not wait and took a handmade receiving for her unit and left the service centre. After that the

 

 

officials of service centre many times tried to contact the complainant but the complainant did not agree for repair. OP/company provides one year warranty on the unit. Warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy. The Op is still ready to repair the mobile set as per terms and conditions of warranty. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                 To prove her version complainant tendered her affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents as Annexure C-1 and C-9 and closed her evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for OP Nos.2 & 3 tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith documents as Annexure R/1 and closed their evidence.

4.                 We have heard the learned counsel for contested parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Annexure C-8 is the copy of the invoice/bill whereby complainant purchased the mobile in question from OP No,.1 on 21.06.2017 for an amount of Rs.13,500/-. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the said mobile got defected in the month of Nov.2017 i.e. within warranty. The OP No.2 failed to rectify the problem occurred in the mobile set despite repeated repairs. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP Nos.2 & 3 has submitted that the complainant has brought his mobile set for its repair to OP No.2 and its mechanic told her that  it will take some time to check the mobile set and to generate job sheet but she did not  wait and took the handmade receipt. The Ops are still ready to repair the mobile. From the receipts, Annexure C-6 and C-7 it is abundantly clear that the complainant handed over the mobile set to the OP No.2 i.e. service centre. Once, the mobile set was given to the OP No.2 then it is its bounded duty to analysis the defect and generate a job sheet and remove the defects. The plea that the complainant did not give enough time to repair is not plausible explanation and is not acceptable. It is a matter of fact that mobile set had been given to the OP No.2, twice for repair and has not been set right. In today’s time of fast communication, it is difficult to keep communication without the mobile. The complainant has been denied the facility of communication because of fault in the mobile and for not rectifying the defect despite repeated visits by the complainant to the OP No.2. Thus, we hold that the OP No.2 has been deficient in rendering services and we opined that the complainant is entitled to get a new mobile set in replacement of the impugned defective mobile.  The OP no.2 being the service centre and the OP No.3 being the manufacture are thus liable to replace the mobile set in question with the new one. There are also liable to compensate to the complainant for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by he alongwith litigation cost. It may be stated here that the complainant in the complaint has merely averred that he had purchased the mobile  in question from the OP No.1 neither any specific allegation against the OPno.1 has been levelled by the complainant nor it has been proved, therefore, the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed.

 

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against OP no.1 and allow the same against the OP Nos. 2 & 3. The OP Nos. 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed in following manner:

1. To replace the Mobile set in question with a new one of the same model with requisite warranty and if the same model is not available then to refund an amount of Rs. 13,500/- being the price of the mobile.
2. To pay Rs. 3000/- as compensation/ litigation expenses. 

 

The Op No.2 & 3 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies 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.

Announced on :13.03.2019

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma) (Ruby Sharma)     (NeenaSandhu)

              Member                        Member             President