Haryana

Ambala

CC/168/2013

AaKASH MEHTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MALIK ELECTRONICS . - Opp.Party(s)

INPERSON

16 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM : AMBALA

                             Complaint Case No.           :         168 OF 2013

                             Date of Institution                :         05-07-2013

                             Date of Decision                  :         16.12.2015

Akash Mehta son of Late Sh. Naresh Kumar Mehta at present resident of  H.No.1730, Sec-9, H.B.Colony, Ambala City.

:::::::Complainant.

                                                                                                    Versus

1.                Malik Electronics, Chowk kotwali Bazar, Ambala City through its Proprietor.

2.                Samsung Electronics India (P) Ltd, 2^nd Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech. Square, Golf Course Road, Sector- 43, Gurgaon-122002 through its Managing Director.

3.                M/s Arora Electronics, 21, Jain Nagar, Opp. Petrol Pump, Ambala City (Authorised Service Centre of Samsung Electronics) through its authorized signatory.

4.                Kohli Electronics, Kabari Bazar, Ambala Cantt (Authorised Service Centre of Samsung Electronics) through its authorized  signatory.

:::::::Opposite Parties/Respondents.

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:             SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

Present:-             Complainant in person

                             OP No.1ex-parte

                             Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, Adv.counsel  for OPs No. 2 to 4.                 

O R D E R

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased  a Mobile phone make SAMSUNG GT-S7562 GALAXY S DUOS bearing IMEI No. 354905053635456 vide Invoice No.11791 dated 27-2-2013 in a sum of Rs.12,990/- with a warranty of 1 year from OP No.1 with the assurance of best hand set and of reputed company. After three months, the said mobile phone started giving problem such as buttons not working properly, set-hanged all the time & switch off automatically. Thereafter the complainant contacted OPs No.3 & 4  service centres of OP company for repairing the mobile set. On examination of the phone, the OPs No.3 & 4 told the complainant to go to OP No.1 as the set has been tempered with by soldering and the set has no nut- bolts in it as the mobile set shows manufacturing defects. Due to above said facts, it is established that this model of the mobile phone is having a manufacturing defect, which is beyond repairs of the service centre. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

 

 

2.          Notice of complaint was served upon all the OPs but OP No.1 failed to appear before the forum inspite of service and thus he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 6.9.2013. OPs no. 2 to 4 appeared through counsel and submitted reply raising preliminary objections qua non maintainability of complaint , no cause of action against the answering respondent and complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts, by misrepresenting & misinterpreting  and making false allegations. On merits, it  has  been  urged that the complainant purchased the mobile phone having good knowledge of all the terms and conditions regarding  warranty, repair  related  issues etc. and the warranty becomes void  in  the  following  conditions  i.e.  i) Liquid Logged/ water logging, ii)physically damage, iii) Serial No. Missing, iv) tampering, v) mishandling etc. and thus no claim is made out against the answering respondent since the set in question was already tempered and mishandled by the complainant when he approached the service centre on 2-10-2013. In the end, OPs No. 2 to 4 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

3.          In evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 &  C-2 and closed his evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OPs No. 2 to 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of one Somya Sawroop, as Annexure R-X and documents as Annexures R-1 to R-5 and closed evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 to 4.

 

 

4.           We have heard the counsel for both the parties and gone through the case file minutely. The main grievance of the complainant is that he purchased  a Mobile phone make SAMSUNG GT-S7562 GALAXY S DUOS user friendly phone in a sum of Rs.12,990/- with a warranty of 1 year from the OPs. After some time, the said mobile phone started giving problem as buttons not working properly, set- hanged all the time & switch off automatically. The  set failed to perform satisfactorily wherefrom it is established that this model of the mobile phone is having a manufacturing defect, which is beyond the repairs of service centre.  Besides it, to strengthen his case, the complainant  has relied upon the case law reported in 2008(1) CLT Page 15 rendered by Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Soni Erricson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal and 2007 (1) CLT Page 614 passed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled as Head Marketing and Communication, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and other   wherein it is held that inspite of repair of mobile set, it did not work and thus observed that the handset was having inherent defects and refund of cost of mobile was ordered.  On the other hand OP counsel argued that OP company is the reputed company and provides world class service to its customers and the complainant has filed frivolous complaint after utilizing the phone in question 4/5 months only to grab compensation from the Ops and requested for dismissal of complaint.

 

 

5.           After hearing the counsel for both the parties and going through the record, it is crystal clear from the document Annexure C-1 that the mobile set in question of SAMSUNG Company  was  sold  by OP No.1 to the complainant on 27-2-2013. Further it is also not in dispute that the mobile set was having a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase and it became defective within a period of 4/5 months i.e. during the warranty period wherein the problem of  buttons not working properly, hanged all the time & switch off automatically have been specifically reported by the complainant wherefrom occurrence of manufacturing defect is established in said model of mobile phone.

                   So, from the above discussed facts, we have come to the conclusion that the model of mobile set sold to the complainant by the OP No.1  was having inherent defect from its very beginning and the same could not be rectified by the OPs  during the warranty period despite various visits of the complainant to their service centre. Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by OPs. Accordingly we accept the complaint and direct the OPs to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

                (i)         to return cost of the mobile set to the complainant after deducting 30% of cost as depreciation i.e. Rs. 9093/-( 70% of Rs.12990/-) alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint to till its realization.

               (ii)         also to pay Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation.

Let the aforesaid order/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within a stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:16.12.2015                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                         ( A.K.SARDANA)                                                                                                                                                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                 ( PUSHPENDER KUMAR )   

                                                                                             MEMBER