DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 180 of 3.5.2016
Decided on: 7.9.2018
Babu Ram son of Ranjit Singh, resident of H.No.1, Divn. No.2, Raghomajra, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Mobile Tech, Micromax Check Point, Shop No.1, Ranjit Plaza, Bhupindra Road, Patiala through its Prop.
2. Wadhwa Electronics Opposite P.S.Divn. No.4, near Bus Stand, Patiala through its Prop.
3. Micromax Mobiles, Plot No.21/14, Block-A, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi-110028, through its authorized signatory/M.D.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member
ARGUED BY
Sh. Amardeep Singh, Advocate,
counsel for complainant.
Sh.Mayank Malhotra,Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.
Opposite parties No.2&3 ex-parte.
ORDER
SH. M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT
This is the complaint filed by Babu Ram ( hereinafter referred to as the complainant against Mobile Tech and others (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
- Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased one mobile Micromax A290 white and gold from OP no.1, vide invoice No.1875 dated 22.7.2015 for a sum of Rs.8000/-. He also purchased one Samsung Mobile for a sum of Rs.1500/- and paid total sum of Rs.9500 for both the mobile sets. There was warranty/ guarantee of one year given by the OP in case of manufacturing defect/damage. The complainant has been using the mobile phone with very care and caution but after some time Micromax mobile started giving problem while charging the same. The mobile phone did not work/charge properly. He brought this defect to the knowledge of OP no.1 in the last week of January,2016. OP no.1 kept the mobile phone with it and asked to collect the same after 4-5 days. It was also assured that the defect will be removed. On 1.2.2016, complainant approached OP no.1. He was astonished when OP demanded Rs.800/- on account of replacement charging jack. He was asked to pay a sum of Rs.800/- as the Micromax mobile is out of warranty. Under compelling circumstances, the complainant had to pay Rs.800/- to the OP and OP No.1 issued bill no.286 dated 1.2.2016.No consent of the complainant was taken. No intimation was given to the complainant for charging the amount. The mobile phone was within warranty period. OP no.1 was not to charge any amount. Mobile phone was to be repaired without charging anything. It was alleged that after repair, mobile phone again started giving trouble. Complainant sent registered legal notice dated 11.2.2016 to OPs and requested to refund the amount of Rs.800/-, wrongly charged and to pay damages for causing mental agony, harassment , unfair trade practice etc. The notice was duly served upon the OPs. OP no.1 sent reply dated 20.2.2016 by taking false pleas.
On this back ground of the facts, the complainant allegedunfair trade practice on the part of the OPs for which OPs No.2&3 are liable being whole seller and manufactures. Complainant also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical sufferings. Hence this complaint.
Upon notice none appeared on behalf of OP no.3. As such OP no.3 was proceeded against exparte. Previously OPs No.1&2 appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing separate written replies. In reply OP no.1 raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action has accrued to the complainant to file the complaint; that complaint has been filed just to harass and humiliate the OP. it is liable to be dismissed with special costs.
On merits, the purchase of mobile phone by the complainant is not denied. It is denied that the complainant was issued warranty/ guarantee of one year as alleged. It is further mentioned that while purchasing mobile phone every consumer is given a warranty card with the mobile set, in which it has been clearly mentioned that usage other than in accordance with the user manual, rough handling, ingression off, exposure to any kind of liquid (water, sweat, beverages, oil etc) exposure to moisture, dampness or exposure to extreme thermal or environmental conditions, corrosion, oxidation, unauthorized repairs, unauthorized spare part usage, accidents, force of nature or other actions beyond the reasonable control of Micromax unless the defect was caused directly by defects in material or workmanship. It is also mentioned that the unit will not cover any physicaldamage or damage to the surfaceto the hand set including but not limited to cracks or scratches on the LCD or camera lens. It is further mentioned that as per warranty card, it has been mentioned that physical damage will not be covered under the warranty scheme. It is denied that the mobile was giving any problem of charging as alleged. It is admitted that the complainant approached OP no.1 for repair of set. It is denied that the complainant was pressurized or compelled to pay Rs.800/- for repair. It is further claimed that the service job sheet issued to the complainant clearly mentions that the set was found to be physically damaged during entry level i.e at the time of booking the hand set. This fact was very much in the knowledge of the complainant. Subsequent repair estimate of Rs.800/- was approved by the complainant. Only after his approval, the set was booked for repair and amount of Rs.800/- was charged for changing the charging jack, which was broken due to forcible insertion of charging pin. The broken/changed part was also returned to the complainant. All the other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP no.2 in its reply admitted that being dealer of the Micromax mobile, he has no connection with the case of the complainant. It is also pleaded that the complainant cannot take any advantage of his own wrong as the mobile hand set must have developed defectby the complainant himself. All the other averments of the complainant are denied. It is relevant to mention that subsequently OP no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.1.2017.
- The parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence.
In support of his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, original cash memo, Ex.C1, mobile repair bill, Ex.C2, copy of legal notice, Ex.C3, postal receipts Exs.C4 to C6, reply to legal notice, Ex.C7, copy of mail, Exs.C8 to C10 and warranty conditions, Ex.C11.
The OP no.1 tendered into evidence, affidavit of Harjinder Singh, Ex.OPA, service job sheet, Ex.OP1 and warranty conditions, Ex.OP2 and closed evidence.
We haveheard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
The ld. counsel for the complainant has reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint. It is further pleaded that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant from OP no.2 is admitted. Invoice Ex.C2 also proves this fact. The complainant has also placed on record warranty terms and conditions Ex.C11. It is categorically mentioned that the warranty will be applicable for 12 months from the date of original purchase. The mobile was purchased on 22.7.2015. OP no.1 has charged Rs.800/- for change of jack on 1.2.2016 by mentioning, ‘mobile out of warranty’. Therefore, unfair trade practice on the part of OPs stands established. The complainant also gotissued legal notice to all the OPs. Copy of the same is produced on record with postal receipts. Reply was received from OP no.1 which also proves delivery of legal notice. The OPs failed to redress the grievance of the complainant despite legal notice. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to relief claimed for.
On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has submitted that the complainant himself has brought on record warranty conditions, Ex.C11. OP has also produced the same as Ex.OP2.The condition No.6 briefs thecircumstances under which warranty is not applicable. Any physical damage to the surface of the hand set but not limited to the cracks or scratches. The complainant has relied upon the bill, Ex.C2. It is also mentioned in this bill that there is damage to the charging jack due to which the mobile was out of warranty. The faulty part was also given to the complainant. Job sheet, Ex.OP1 also proves that at the entry level the charging jack was found broken and physically damaged. Repair estimate of Rs.800/- was approved by the customer. As the damage was not covered under the warranty, therefore, OP was not under obligation to provide free service.
We have given careful consideration to these submissions.
The admitted facts are that the complainant purchased mobile set in question from OP no.1 vide invoice dated 22.7.2015. The OPs provided one year warranty. The complainant reported defect in January/2016 and OP charged Rs.800/- for replacement of the charging jack.
The only controversy is as to whether the defect was covered under the warranty or not.
The mobile was purchased on 22.7.2015. Defect was reported in the last week of January/2016 i.e. after more than six months. There is nothing to show any manufacturing defect in the mobile hand set. The OP has brought on record service job sheet, Ex.OP1. The condition of the hand set at the time of receipt of the mobile is mentioned, which shows charging jack broken and physically damaged. There was remarks “that the jack problem due to physical wrong insertion pin warranty voids”. Estimate of Rs.800/-was approved by the customer. The OP no.1 has also issued the bill, which also proves that the faulty part was given to the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that the charging jack was never broken and suffered from any manufacturing defect.
As per condition No.6 of the warranty terms and conditions, the warranty is not applicable when the usage is other than in accordance with the user manual , rough handling and physical damage.
The net conclusion is that the defect in the charging jack was not covered being broken. Therefore, the OP was not under obligation to provide free service. As such no deficiency in service or unfair trade practiced can be attributed on the part of the OPs.
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is without merit and is dismissed accordingly. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:7.9.2018
Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh Neelam Gupta M. P. Singh Pahwa
Member Member President
