Delhi

North East

CC/86/2021

Ashish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.G. Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 86/21

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Ashish Kumar S/o Sh. Virender Kumar R/o A-6/5, Puir Gali No.2, Moujpur, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.       3.	M.G Mobile India Pvt. Ltd.( Go Mobile) Shop NO. 31/6 1st Main Road Moujpur, Delhi-110053   Bharat Communication Samsung Service Centre, A-245, Durga Puri, Extn., 100 Foota Road, New Delhi-110093   Samsung Pvt. Ltd. At:-20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Gold Course Road, DLF Phase-5, Sector -43, Gurugram, Haryana-12202	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

22.07.21 18.05.23 16.06.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

 Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member  

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

 

 

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant purchased a mobile phone for a sum of Rs. 16,499/- vide bill no. G00057-00014147 dated 28.11.20 from Opposite Party No.1 on instalments and paid all instalments. The Complainant stated that after 7 months of purchase the said mobile was not working properly and visited Opposite Party No.2 service centre. The officials of Opposite Party No.2 told Complainant that the said mobile phone was in warranty period and they will repair the mobile phone in question without any charges. The Complainant stated that on 16.07.21 Complainant received phone call from Opposite Party No.2 and demanded Rs. 4,200/- by saying that your mobile phone is not in warranty period. The Complainant stated that the said mobile phone is in warranty period but Opposite Party No.2 denied that his mobile is under warranty and demanded Rs. 4,200/- for repairing of his mobile. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for the amount of mobile phone in question i.e. Rs. 16,499/- and Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment. He also prayed for Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.  
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to contest the case. Therefore, both Opposite Party No.1 and 2 were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 15.09.22.

Case of the Opposite Party No.3

3. The Opposite Party No.3 contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party No.3 stated that the Complainant admittedly purchased the handset in question from their service centre and the handset carried one year warranty. It is further submitted that under the warranty policy, if the product is damaged, the warranty shall be void for breach of terms and conditions and the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis. It is further submitted that the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.3 after approx..8 months with the issue ‘’ Handset is not working properly”, however, the their technician inspected the product and found that “handset is liquid logged” and duly informed the Complainant that due to “liquid logging”, the repair shall be chargeable as the warranty has been lapsed. It is submitted that the handset in question was damaged due to mishandling on the part of the Complainant; as post opening the handset, the technician found the white salt traces which happens due to liquid entering the handset, which rendered warranty void. Therefore an estimate of Rs. 4,127/- was issued to the Complainant as the consumer has to bear the expenses for the repairs once the product is physical/liquid damaged. However, the same was not accepted by the Complainant and filed the present false and frivolous complaint. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant and hence, the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.3

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.3 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.3 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.3

6. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No.3 has filed affidavit of                  Sh. Sandeep Sahajiwani, AR for Opposite Party No.3 wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.3 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant in person and Counsel for Opposite Party No.3. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.3. The case of the Complainant is that the he purchased the handset in question from the shop keeper i.e. Opposite Party No.1. When the said handset was not working properly, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 the service center of Opposite Party No.3, the manufacturer; the Complainant was allegedly informed that his mobile is not under warranty and demanded Rs. 4,200/- for repairing of his mobile which shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties.
8. On the other hand, while Opposite Party 1 &2 have not entered appearance, the Opposite Party No.3, being the manufacturer, has contested the case. Opposite Party No.3 contended that although, the subject handset was carrying one year warranty, but under the warranty policy, if the product is damaged, the warranty shall be void for breach of terms and conditions and the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis. It is submitted that on 14.07.2021 i.e. approx. 8 months the Complainant visited their service centre with the issue that handset was not working properly. Upon inspection by their technician, it was found that “handset is liquid logged” and the Complainant was duly informed that due to “liquid logging”, the repair shall be chargeable as the warranty has been lapsed. It is submitted that an estimate of Rs. 4,127/- was issued to the Complainant as the consumer has to bear the expenses for the repairs once the product is physical/liquid damaged. Therefore, there is not any kind of deficiency on their part.
9. From the perusal of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, it is observed that it is not disputed that the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.3 for repairs within warranty period and the Opposite Party No.3 issued an estimate of Rs. 4,127/- for the same informing that the warranty had lapsed. The contention of the Opposite Party No.3 is that warranty of the handset had lapsed as the product was found liquid logged and the Complainant was duly informed about that. The said contention cannot be accepted as the Opposite party No.3 has neither examined the concerned technician nor have they filed any affidavit of the technician in support of their case that the handset was liquid logged.
10. In the light of above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that the Opposite party No.3 has been deficient in service by failing to repair the handset in question under the warranty.
11. Thus, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party No.3 is directed to refund to the Complainant the cost of the handset to the tune of Rs. 16,499/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party No.3 is further directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost. Opposite Party No.3 is liable to pay the same within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of order. In case of delay in the payment beyond 4 weeks Opposite Party will be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. for the delayed period.
12. Order announced on 16.06.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)             Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President