Haryana

Sonipat

CC/85/2016

Pawan Attri S/o Jagdish Attri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobile Shopee - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Vashishtha

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                  Complaint No.85 of 2016

Instituted on: 29.03.2016                                                      

Date of order:  14.06.2016

 

 

Pawan Attri son of Jagdish Attri resident of village Bhaloth, tehsil and distt. Rohtak at present resident of Sector 23, Sonepat.

…Complainant.        Versus

 

1.Mobile Shopee Shop no.43, 44 Opp. Durga Cable, Geeta Bhawan Chowk, Sonepat through its Prop.

2.INS Telecom (Authorized Service Centre of Samsung) 105, 8 Marla, above Punjab National Bank, Sonepat through its Manager.

3.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO 35, Sector 31, HUDA Market, Gurgaon, through its Manager.

 

                                                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Shri Savinder Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

          Respondent no.1 ex-parte.

          Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, Adv. (Karnal) for

respondents no.2 & 3.

 

Before-  Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

 

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that on 24.12.2015 he has purchased a Samsung Galaxy J5 mobile for Rs.13000/- from respondent no.1.  But when the said mobile was on charging mode, and the complainant has tried to use the said mobile, it was found not in running condition and it was automatically switched off. The complainant has approached the respondent no.3 who has told that during charging, LCD of the mobile has been damaged and Rs.4346/- were demanded from the complainant, which the complainant has refused to pay as the mobile was in warranty period.  The complainant has requested the respondents either to replace the same with new one or to refund the cost of the mobile, but of no use. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.2 and 3 have appeared and they filed their reply, whereas respondent no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte.

         The respondents no.2 and 3 in their joint written statement have submitted that on 10.2.2016, the engine of service centre thoroughly checked the unit in front of the complainant and it was found that there was a impact damage on the unit and as per company policy, the unit is barred by warranty due to mishandling on the part of the complainant. An estimate of Rs.4346/- was rightly given to the complainant.  But the complainant has refused to pay the repairing charges and took his unit back to his satisfaction. So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and respondents no.2 and 3 at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

4.       In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has purchased the mobile in question from respondent no.1 on 24.12.2015 worth Rs.13000/-.

         The plea of the complainant is that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile and when the complainant has approached the respondent no.2 for its repair under warranty, Rs.4346/- were demanded from the complainant and this demand of the respondent no.2 was wrong and illegal.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 have submitted that on 10.2.2016, the engine of service centre thoroughly checked the unit in front of the complainant and it was found that there was a impact damage on the unit and as per company policy, the unit is barred by warranty due to mishandling on the part of the complainant. An estimate of Rs.4346/- was rightly given to the complainant.  But the complainant has refused to pay the repairing charges and took his unit back to his satisfaction. So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

         In the present case, the mobile set was produced by ld.counsel for the complainant before this Forum.  The mobile was seen externally by this Forum and ld. Counsel for the respondents no.2&3.  No external damage to the mobile was seen.  However, if there is any internal damage in the mobile, then the service engineer of the service centre is responsible.

         But after hearing learned counsel for both the parties at length, we are of the view that the mobile set was within warranty period when it was deposited by the complainant with the respondent no.2, who demanded Rs.4346/- as repair charges from the complainant knowing well that the mobile set is within warranty period.  So, this demand of the respondent no.2 was wrong and illegal.  In our view, it was the duty of the respondents to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one particularly when it was within warranty period. 

         The complainant has purchased the mobile set on 24.12.2015 and he has filed the present complaint on 29.3.2016 before this Forum i.e. within three months from the date of purchase of mobile.  Thus, it is held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.2 and 3.  Accordingly, they are hereby directed to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one.  The complainant is also directed to return the defective mobile set alongwith all its accessories to the respondent no.2.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

        File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                         (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF,                        President, DCDRF

Sonepat.                              Sonepat.

 

Announced 14.06.2016