MRS RAJASHREE AGARWALLA, MEMBER-
Deficiency in service on non-replacement of defective mobile handset(Samsung) by the Opp.Parties are the allegations arrayed against the Ops by the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung Make 7582 Model mobile hand set from OP No.3(Proprietor,Mobile India,Kakat,Kendrapara) by paying the cash amount of rs.8700/- on dtd.09.09.2014 and obtained a money receipt as token of his purchase(The copy of cash receipt filed as Annexure-I).It is further stated by the complainant that the mobile set was covered under the warranty i.e. upto dtd.08.09.16 as per the terms of warranty certificate(Annexure-II). It is also stated by the complainant that after using the mobile hand set, the set was became disfunctional which he approached the OP No.1 for rectification of the defect from the mobile handset. After that the OP No.2 repaired the set and handed over the mobile set to the complainant. But, it is a matter of regret that after some days the mobile set in question gave further defect and the complainant again approached the OP No.1 for eradication of defect but all the efforts remain in vain. After that the complainant, being dissatisfied with the mobile set in question approached the Ops for supplying a new mobile hand set after taking the old one in question. It is alleged by the complainant that the OP No.3 by adopting unfair trade practice had willfully and intentionally sold the defective set in question to the complainant. The complainant, by using the defective set in question has sustained irreparable loss and injury claiming compensation and praying for supplying a new mobile set to the complainant of the same model along with cost and compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the complaint.
3. Upon notice OP No.1 & 2 appeared through their Ld. Counsel filed written statement and opposed that the complaint case is not maintainable in the eyes of law and prays for dismissal of the complaint. It is also stated by the Ops that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hand and complaint should be liable to be dismissed. It is averred by the Ops that the complainant has suppressed the material facts knowingly which is unlawful attempt against the Ops. The Ops have never assured the complainant to supply a new had set in place of defective set in question. It is averred by the Ops that the complainant purchased the aforesaid mobile hand set (Samsung Model-7582) on dtd. 09.09.l4 from OP No.3 for consideration amount of Rs.8700/- with warranty which expires on dtd.08.09.15.The statement of complainant ‘set Hang’ is not at all correct which according to Ops is baseless, imaginary. The allegation of ‘No charging’ ‘Set hang’ persist in the mobile has been eradicated by the OP-authorized service station on production of the mobile set on dtd.07.01.15, dtd.10.08.15 and on dtd.01.09.15. It is further averred that complainant extended the warranty of his mobile phone from dtd.09.09.15 to dtd. 08.09.16 for a period of one year. It is stated by the Ops that the after repair of the mobile set by Ops, it was running smoothly all the times, but the complainant misuses the mobile set and unnecessarily knocking the doors of Ops praying for new set which is not at all correct. In this way, the Ops prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Regd. notice sent to OP No.3 by post but the OP No.3 did not appear into the case, for which OP No.3 is set ex-parte vide Order No.20 dtd.29.03.17 passed by this Forum.
5. Heard the case of the complainant on merit and Ld.Counsel for oP No.1 & 2. It is an admitted fact that complainant purchased a 7582 Model mobile hand set, manufactured by SAMSUNG India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. by paying an amount of Rs.8700/- on dtd.09.09.14 from Mobile India,Kakat,Kendrapara(OP No.3). It is also admitted that during existence of warranty i.e. from dtd.09.09.14 to dtd.08.09.15 and extended warranty from dtd.09.09.15 to dtd.08.09.2016, the mobile had set show certain defects, which were repaired by OP No.2,authorized Service Centre. Complainant to substantiate his case filed self attested Xerox copies of Sale Invoice, warranty certificate and cash receipt granted by authorized service centre. On the other hand, contesting OPs filed documents as per the list, which includes attested Xerox copy of report of service history( 1 sheet), job sheet dtd. 07.01.15, 10.08.15 and dtd.01.09.15.
In the present dispute complainant alleges that in spite of repeated repairs during the warranty period of the disputed mobile hand set and on assurance to replace the mobile hand set by a new one, the OPs are not keeping their commitment as a result the mobile hand set is lying dysfunctional till-date. Countering the allegations contesting OPs submitted that the warranty period of mobile hand set was expired on dtd. 08.09.15 and the complainant extended the warranty for another term of one year which is expired on dtd. 08.09.16. During the said period the defects in the said mobile hand set were repaired by the OP No.2, authorized service centre and certain defects like ‘Hang’ in the mobile set occurs due to over loading of datas on the mobile hand set and an allegation of ‘No charging’ of the set, it occurs due to broken of the ‘Jack Micro USB’. It appears from the copy of the job sheets produced by countering Ops that the mobile hand set was repaired by the authorized service station(OP No.2) on three occasions i.e. on dtd.07.01.15,dtd.10.08.15, and on dtd.01.09.15 for different technical reasons and the defects occurs within the existence of the original warranty period i.e. from dtd.09.09.14 to dtd.08.09.15. In our opinion, if a newly purchased mobile hand set shows defects for three times within a period of one year for whatsoever reason, same can not be treated as a normal defect, the mobile hand set must be some ‘inherent manufacturing defect’ as the job sheet produced by contesting OPs does not reflect that the disputed hand set was misused by the complainant-purchaser as averred in the written version. In our opinion in these circumstances no further evidence or expert evidence is required to prove that the disputed hand set was not having any ‘inherent manufacturing defect’. Equally, it is a fact that such frequent defects in the disputed mobile set though repaired by authorized service station as per the warranty, but same can not be held that the mobile hand set is a perfect one and will perform as per the assurance of the OP-Company. Accordingly, we do not observe any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of OP No.2,authorized service centre. It is the manufacturing company(OP No.1) is solely responsible to comply the grievance of the complainant. Accordingly, we, free OP No.1 & 3 from any such liability of unfair trade practice.
Having observations, reflected above, it is directed that the complainant will produce the disputed hand set before OP No.3, Proprietor, Mobile India,Kakat Chhak,Kendrapara and on its production OP No.3 will grant an acknowledgement in support of receive. It is further directed that on receipt of the disputed set, OP No.1,Manager,Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. will replace the mobile by a new one of same model and price with a fresh warranty. If the same model of mobile hand set on same price is not available with OP-Company, the OP-Company will refund the price of the mobile hand set of Rs.8700/-(Rupees Eight thousand seven hundred)only with 6 per cent simple rate of interest calculating from dtd.09.09.15 to till its realization. The order is to be carried out within one month of receipt of this order, failing which action will be initiated as per the provisions of C.P.Act,1986.
Accordingly, the Complaint is allowed in part without cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 31st day of May,2017.
