BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:48 of 2018.
Date of Instt.: 7.02.2018.
Date of Decision: 29.06.2018.
Chander Bhan son of Shri Ram Kishan, resident of VPO Bhodia Khera, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
…Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Ajanta Enterprises, Opposite Union Bank of India, G.T. Road, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad through its Proprietor.
- M/s Samsung Mobile Service Centre, Mobile Solutions, Behind Palika Bazar, Fatehabad Tehsil and District Fatehabad through its Proprietor/Partner.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2nd to 4th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech. Square, Sector-43, DLF Golf Course Road, Gurgaon through its Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. M.K. Khurana, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Jitender Thakkar, counsel for OP no. 1.
Sh. Yogesh Gupta, counsel for OP no. 2 & 3.
ORDER:
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he purchased a mobile handset of Samsung Company Model J-7 Prime Gold for an amount of Rs. 15,900/- vide invoice no. 1624 dated 18.7.2017 from OP no. 1. At that time OP no. 1 assured to the complainant that there is a warranty of one year on the mobile and during this period, if any manufacturing defect will crept in the handset, then it will be replaced with a new one of the same mobile. It is further submitted that OP no. 3 is manufacturer of the said mobile and OP no. 2 is authorized service centre of OP no. 3 and therefore the complainant is consumer of the OPs as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. It is further submitted that after passing of sometime, it was noticed by the complainant that a problem of heating and then switch off has crept in the mobile. The problem of speaker and non visibility of display also crept in the mobile handset. Therefore, the complainant made a complaint to OP no. 1 and OP no. 1 gave address of OP no. 2 being authorized service centre of the company. Upon this the complainant approached to OP no. 2 on 13.1.2018 and asked him to remove the said problems as the mobile was under warranty. On this, the mechanic of OP no. 2 after checking the mobile told the complainant that there is some major manufacturing defect in the unit and asked him to come again after 2 days. However, after two days when the complainant again approached to OP no. 2 then he did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. Thereafter, on 15.1.2018, when the complainant visited office of OP no. 2, then OP no. 2 charged an amount of Rs. 180/- from the complainant without any reason and even thereafter the mobile was not working properly, so the complainant again approached to OP no. 2 and he told that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. So, the complainant requested OP no. 2 to repair the mobile or to replace the same as the defect occurred within the period of warranty. Upon this, the OP refused to repair or replace the mobile and asked the complainant for a payment of Rs. 6,000/- for repair of the defect in the mobile.
3. It is further submitted that the abovesaid act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and as such a legal notice dated 20.12.2017 was also got served by the complainant upon the OPs but to no avail.
4. It is further prayed by the complainant that the OPs may be directed for making a payment of Rs. 15,900/- i.e. the original cost of the mobile handset along-with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The complainant also further prayed that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation may be awarded and an amount of Rs. 11,000/- as litigation charges be paid to him. Hence the present complaint.
5. On being served, Ops No. 2 and 3 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, territorial jurisdiction, concealment of true and correct facts, cause of action and locus standi etc. have been raised.
6. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant regarding the complaint in the unit approached the service centre of OPs on 13.1.2018 i.e. after about 6 months from the date of purchase of mobile handset in question. The complainant reported MIC, Speaker and Display problem in his unit. The engineer of the service centre checked the unit and found that the unit was liquid damaged due to mis-handling on the part of the complainant. Therefore, the engineer of the service centre told the complainant that the unit cannot be considered under warranty as the company provides one year warranty from the date of purchase of the unit and the warranty is under some conditions and one of the condition is that if the unit is liquid damaged the warranty will become void. Since in the present case the unit in question was liquid damaged on account of mishandling by the complainant, as such the complainant was not entitled for repair of the same, free of cost. Accordingly, an estimate of repair was provided to the complainant. However, the complainant refused to make payment of the charges and demanded free of cost repair or replacement of the unit. It is further submitted that on 15.1.2018 the complainant again approached to the service centre regarding the same issue and after checking of the unit the same was found water damaged and the complainant was again told that the warranty of the unit has become void and the unit in question can be repaired on chargeable basis.
7. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant. The action of the OPs is perfectly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty and the same is sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of their case, the OP no. 2 & 3 have placed reliance on the judgments cited as 3 (2010) CPJ 130 (NC), (2000) NCJ (Supreme Court) Page 59, (1996) 4 SCC Page 704.
8. On being served, OP No. 1 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to cause of action, locus standi and maintainability etc. have been raised.
9. In reply on merits, it is submitted by OP no. 1 that he has sold the mobile handset in question to the complainant in the same condition in which it was delivered to him by OP no. 3 and as such OP no. 1 is not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner. There is no deficiency on the part of OP no. 1 in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against OP no. 1.
10. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Exhibit CW1/A and the documents as Exhibit C-2 to Exhibit C-7 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, Shri Sandeep Sahijwani filed an affidavit as Annexure RW2/A on behalf of OP no. 2 & 3. OP no. 2 and 3 also tendered in evidence the documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence.
11. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. It is not disputed that the mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant from OP no. 1 for an amount of Rs. 15,900/- on 18.7.2017. It is also not in dispute that the OP no. 3 is manufacturer of the abovesaid unit and OP no. 2 is the authorized service centre of OP no. 3. It is also not disputed that a warranty of one year from the date of purchase of the abovesaid unit was given by the OPs to the complainant. From perusal of job sheet dated 13.1.2018 Annexure C-1, it is also evident that a major defect crept in the mobile within the warranty period. The OPs no. 2 & 3 declined to repair/replace the mobile handset in question on the ground that the mobile handset in question was water/liquid damaged on account of fault of the complainant and as such the unit was not covered under terms and conditions of warranty. Therefore, the onus was upon the OPs no. 2 & 3 to prove that the unit in question was liquid damaged. However, OP no. 2 & 3 failed to produce any cogent, convincing and credible evidence or the opinion of any expert to prove that the unit in question was liquid damaged. In the job sheet dated 13.1.2018 Annexure C-1, the engineer of the service care centre of the company has not mentioned that the unit in question was liquid damaged. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion the ground taken by the OP no. 2 & 3 for declining the repair/replacement of the unit in question is not tenable and the complainant has been able to prove that there is deficiency on the part of OP no. 3 in rendering service to him. Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed against OP no. 3.
12. Regarding the quantum of loss suffered by the complainant, it is submitted that the unit in question was used by the complainant for a period of about six months without any defect. Keeping in view the abovesaid fact, we direct to OP no. 3 for making a payment of original cost to the complainant after a deduction of 25%. The present complaint is accordingly disposed off. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:29.06.2018
(Raghbir Singh)
President
(M.K.Khurana)
Distt. Consumer Dispute
Member
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
