Punjab

Sangrur

CC/21/2015

Satnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.P.S. telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S. Toor

15 May 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                      

                                                          Complaint no. 21

Instituted On 09.01.2015

Decided On 15.05.2015                                                                               

Satnam Singh son of Sh. Gurcharan Singh, resident of village  Cheema, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.     

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

1.     M.P.S. Telecom Private Limited, 702-A, Arunachal Building, 19, Bara Khamba Road, Canaught Palace, New Delhi-110001, through its authorized signatory.

2.     Image Services, 17-AX, Ground Floor, Model Town Extension, Opposite Andhra Bank, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

3.     Preet Dott, Pairru Market, Cheema, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur through its proprietor/ partner.  

      ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT     Shri G.S.Toor, Advocate                           

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.1&2 Shri Jarnail Singh Advocate                     

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3         Shri Vineet  Duggal, Advocate                    

   

 

Quorum

                   

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                    K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

 

 

 

 

ORDER    

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Satnam Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased HTC mobile model 616 ( Dual Sim) from the OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.17000/-  vide bill number 169 dated 19.07.2014.  At the time of purchase of said mobile set, one year warranty was given by OP No.3. The said mobile started giving problems of display and touch in the month of  August 2014 then OP No.3 was approached who told the complainant to approach the OP No.2. On the advice of OP No.3, the complainant approached OP No.2 who told him to hand over the mobile set and to collect the same after 8/10 days.  When the complainant again approached the OP No.2 to collect the mobile set, then the OP No.2 told the complainant that the display of the mobile set has been broken and if you want to install new touch screen/ penal then you have to pay Rs.8080/-  and if you get your mobile set back without removing defect, then in that case you have to pay Rs.560/- on account of opening the mobile set for checking.  The complainant  requested the OP No.3  to replace the  mobile set with new one as the same was within the guarantee/ warranty period  but the OP No.3 refused to do so.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs - 

i)      OPs be directed to refund Rs.17000/ - as cost of the mobile set in question along with interest  @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii )    OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OPs No.1&2, it is denied that the OP No.2 told the complainant that the display of the mobile set has been broken. It is  submitted that  after checking the mobile set, OP No.2 found that the problem in the set is display abnormally touch problem, display problem due to liquid damage in LCD FPC, liquid damage in MB, Liquid damage in lower board, mandatory part, receiver and bottom board, so the OPs are not liable to replace with new one and repair in guarantee/ warranty.  The complainant has not running/handled with care of above said mobile set due to that same has damaged  after touching the water in the interior parts of the mobile set. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 2.  

3.             In reply filed by the OP No.3, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set in dispute under one year warranty from the OP No.3.  It is also admitted that the complainant approached the OP No.3 with regard  to problem of display and touch  and OP No.3 told the complainant to approach  the authorized service centre of HTC i.e. OP No.2.  It is also submitted that  the  OP No.3 is not liable to replace the defective mobile set with  new one. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.                                                                                                                                                                                

4.             In support of his case the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence.  On the other hand OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs1&2/1 to Ex.OPs1&2/5 and closed evidence.

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file, we find that the complainant purchased one HTC mobile model 616 manufactured by OP No.1 from  the OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.17000/- vide  bill number 169 dated 19.07.2014 which is Ex.C-7 on record.  It is not disputed by the parties that the mobile set in question started giving problem of touch, display for which the complainant approached the OPs. The complainant has also produced copy of hTC care service report/ job sheet issued by OP No.2 on 30.08.2014 Ex.C-6 in which it is mentioned that the mobile set in question is having touch and display problems and it was within the warranty period. Learned counsel for the OPs has argued that said problem in the mobile set in question is liquid damage because the complainant has not running/ handled with care of mobile set in question due to that same has damaged after touching the water in the interior parts of the mobile set.

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and thoroughly perusing the entire documents produced on record by the parties, we find that it is the specific case of the OPs that problem in the mobile set in question is liquid damage and same was due to mishandling  of the complainant and due to that mobile set has damaged after touching the water in the interior  parts of the mobile set. But, it is not the case of the OPs that water entered into the mobile set outside due to carelessness of the complainant. Since the mobile set itself is a LCD (liquid crystal display) article and the water in the mobile set can be present due to the manufacturing defect of the LCD display. So there is possibility of liquid damage. Moreover the OPs have not produced any evidence on record which shows that alleged damage  was  occurred due to negligence of complainant.  The complainant has taken an objection that the expert opinion produced by the OPs could not be relied upon because the OPs are paying master of the expert, so he is giving report as per the instructions of the company. The complainant in support of his version has cited ruling of the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission namely Shaminder Pal Singh Vs. Samsung India, First Appeal No.311 of 2012 decided on 17.01.2013.    

7.             We also find that the mobile set in question was with the OPs, so the complainant had no occasion to get the same examined from any expert. As the mobile set was with the OPs so the onus to prove that the mobile set in question is not having manufacturing defect with the OPs but OPs miserably failed to discharge same.

8.             In view of the above discussion, we agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant that LCD of the mobile set is made by liquid crystal display, so water in the mobile set can be present  due to the manufacturing defect  of the LCD.  In view of the facts stated above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same model or in the alternative refund the price amount of  the same i.e. Rs.17000/-. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant  a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.

9.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

                Announced.

May 15, 2015.

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)       ( Sukhpal Singh Gill)           

Member                Member                    President

 

 

BBS/-