BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.242 of 2016.
Date of Instt.:16.09.2016.
Date of Decision: 25.04.2017.
Kuldeep Bishnoi son of Shri Sant Lal resident of Sunder Nagar, Fatehabad Tehsil & District, Fatehabad.
...Complainant
Versus
1.M/s Khurana Mobile Gallery, authorized Dealer 103 Palika Bazar, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its proprietor
2.Mobile Solution Four Malra Colony, behind Palika Bazar, Fatehabad authorized service centre.
3.Defender Apps APPI Informatics Pvt. Limited 227/18, A.B.C. Bose Road, Vikash Building, 3rd Floor, Kokatta-700020.
4.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43 DLF Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-122002.
5.Vipin Setia (Proprietor of the Vivo Care) (Service Centre) Palika Bazar, Fatehabad Mob.No.98136-23000.
..Opposite Parties.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member. Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Present: Sh.Pawan Tandi, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Yogesh Gutpa, Advocate for OPs No.2 & 4.
OP Nos. 1, 3 & 5 exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he had purchased a mobile Samsung J-2 (Gold) bearing IMEI No.356271107196041510 & 3562172107196041518 for a sum of Rs.8500/- from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.13910 dated 12.02.2016. The handset was having one year full guarantee. It has been further averred that the complainant got the mobile in question insured with OP No.3 through OP No.1 by paying Rs.5,00/- in cash. It has been further averred that after one month the mobile fell down on and got damaged, therefore, the complainant visited OP No.1 who kept the mobile with him for repairing and asked to visit after 15 days but when the complainant visited OP No.1 then he asked that the mobile phone is now lying with OP No.2. Thereafter, the complainant visited OP No.2 who asked the complainant to come after 10 days as the parts have not yet been received from the company and also assured that it will repair the same on receiving of parts from the company and also issued job sheet No.RZ8H11BA6TV (356271079604150). It has been further averred that the complainant kept on visiting the OP Nos. 1 & 2 but they neither repaired the mobile nor replaced the same despite lapsing of five months. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1 and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C3.
2. On notice, OP Nos.2 & 4 appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing joint reply wherein it has taken several preliminary objections such as locus standi, cause of action, maintainability and concealment of material facts from this Forum. They have further submitted that the company serves its customer and provide goods at the most competitive price and also enable most impeccable after sales service and there was no intent to deny the same under any circumstances because in case any after sale service/quality issue is brought to the notice of the service centre then as a policy matter it corrected the same as a matter of priority. It has been further submitted that manufacturing defect in the product cannot be determined on the simplicitor submissions as it require proper analysis test report. The company was/is ready to provide services to the complainant regarding the unit in question as per company policy because the warranty was provided for one year but the same was subject to some conditions and the warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions:
1.Liquid logged/water logging.
2.Physically damage. 3.Serial No.missing. 4.Tampering. 5.Mishandling/burnt etc.
The company is a renowned company in electronic products and commodities and is manufacturing the electronic products for the past several years. It has been further submitted that the complainant had approached the service centre vide complaint No.4219092000 on 06.08.2016 with some problem in the handset but after checking the mobile in the presence of the complainant, the engineers of the service centre had told that the warranty of the unit is barred due to physical damage/broken and the same would be repaired on paid basis but the complainant asked that the handset is insured with Op No.3 and he will not pay the charges of the mobile. Other pleas made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OP Nos. 2 & 4 have tendered affidavit of Sh.Anindya Bose as Annexure RW1 and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4. OP Nos. 1, 3 & 5 did not appear before this Forum despite notice, therefore they were proceeded against ex-parte.
3. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OP Nos. 2 & 4 and have gone through the case file carefully.
4. Fact regarding purchasing of hand set from OP No.1 (Annexure C2) duly insured by OP No.3 (Annexure C1) is not disputed. The complainant has come with the plea that the mobile phone got broken during the subsistence of insurance period, which was valid for one year, but the Ops did not indemnify the loss suffered by him. Learned counsel for the complainant drew the attention of this Forum towards copy of job sheet (Annexure C3) wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the display of the handset was damaged and at the time of issuing the job sheet the handset was under full warranty. During the proceeding of this case, OP Nos. 2 & 4 presented a cheque dated 23.09.2016 for a sum of Rs.4852/- and submitted that they have redressed the grievance of the complainant upto their share. The cheque in question was received by the complainant on 21.11.2016 by making his separate statement. The dealer from whom the complainant had purchased the handset and further got insured the same from Op No3 through OP No.1 are have not joined the proceedings of this case and are exparte, therefore, the allegations levelled by the complainant against these OPs remained un-rebutted. OP No.5 has no role to play in the matter in question; therefore, the complaint against him stands dismissed. Perusal of the case file reveals that the total cost of the mobile handset was Rs.8500/- and the complainant had already received a sum of Rs.4852/-, therefore, the end of justice would be met if the Op No.3 is directed to pay the insured sum after deducting Rs.4852/- to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. Since the complainant has specifically levelled allegations against Op No.1 that due to his act and conduct he has suffered mental agony, harassment and financial loss, therefore, the Op No.1 who is exparte in this case is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- in lump sum for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation. The complaint against Ops no.2,4 and 5 is dismissed. This order should be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount would carry interest @ 9 % per annum. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:25.04.2017.
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
(R.S.Panghal (Ansuya Bishnoi) Distt.Consumer Disputes
Member. Member Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
