DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.920 of 2017
Date of institution: 30.10.2017 Date of decision : 04.11.2019
Sukhdev Singh, resident of House No.91, Street No.2, Bar Majra, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Ashoka Enterprises, Shop No.4-5, Naya Gaon, District Mohali through its Proprietor.
2. Mobile Solutions, SCO No.45, Phase-V, Mohali through its Proprietor.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Zonal head.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
OP No.1 Ex-parte.
Shri Simranjit Singh Sidhu, cl. for OP No.2 and 3.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant purchased one Samsung Mobile on 18.12.2016 from OP No.1 for amount of Rs.17,000/- through invoice. It is claimed that since from beginning, mobile suffered from display problem and that is why complainant approached OP No.2 in September, 2017. Display of mobile was changed by OP No.2, but said problem again surfaced and that is why complainant again approached OP No.2, who again changed the display of mobile on 08.09.2017. That problem had not been rectified due to which complainant approached OP No.1 for refund of amount, but both OP No.1 and 2 refused to refund amount. Emails were sent by complainant to OP No.3, the manufacturer for refund of amount, but no satisfactory response received and that is why this complaint filed for seeking refund of price amount of mobile alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.80,000/-.
2. OP No.1 is ex-parte in this case. However, OP No.2 and 3 filed joint reply by claiming that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because he has suppressed material facts and that he has failed to discharge burden of proof placed on him regarding establishment of manufacturing defect in the mobile set. It is admitted that purchased mobile carried warranty of one year. However, it is claimed that no defect was found in the handset during last diagnose, but despite that complainant is seeking replacement of mobile set. In fact there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set and nor there is any deficiency in service on part of OP and that is why prayer made for dismissal of the complaint, but by admitting that mobile set was brought for the first by complainant on 05.09.2017 to OPs. It is further admitted that on 07.09.2017, complainant again approached OPs regarding problem of whitening in camera quality. After checking mobile, it was found that there is no defect in the mobile hand set. However, LCD of the mobile hand set was changed on 05.09.2017 and thereafter mobile phone was handed over to complainant in perfect working condition. No subsequent complaint raised by complainant and as such there is no occasion with OPs for refund of price as claimed by complainant.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and then closed evidence. On the other hand counsel for OP No.2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-2/1 of Shri Anup Kumar Mathur alongwith documents Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/3 and then closed evidence.
4. Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. From pleadings of the parties and the submitted affidavits as well as contents of invoice Ex.C-1 it is established that mobile phone in question was purchased by complainant from OP No.1 on 18.12.2016. On this invoice Ex.C-1 itself it is mentioned that goods sold are under manufacturer terms and conditions, for which OP No.1 will not be liable. Retailer after sale of mobile set not bound to remove defects therein because alleged manufacturing defects to be removed by manufacturer or the service centre. Defect in the mobile for the first time took place in September, 2017, which as per OPs took place on 05.09.2017. So in view of purchase of mobile on 18.12.2016 through Ex.C-1, it is obvious that mobile phone in question remained defect free for more than 9 months after its purchase. As no defect occurred or reported by complainant in the mobile phone for 9 months after its purchase and as such story regarding existence of manufacturing defect is not at all believable, more so when report of expert not obtained qua alleged manufacturing defect and even details of manufacturing defect not at all given in the complaint or in the affidavit of complainant or in any other documents produced by complainant. Being so, complaint against OP No.1 merits dismissal.
6. It is vehemently contended by counsel for OP No.2 and 3 that alleged display problem not specified and nor any expert opinion produced by complainant and as such assertion of manufacturing defect is not true. This submission advanced by counsel for OP No.2 and 3 has force in view of above discussion. It is also contended by counsel for complainant that mobile was taken by complainant twice for reporting about alleged problem, but only one job card was prepared. That submission certainly has force because one job card Ex.C-2 dated 07.09.2017 only is produced on record. Perusal of Ex.C-2 reveals that defect was of whitening in the camera quality and repair of same was done and thereafter the mobile phone was received back by complainant by recording satisfaction note. Signatures of complainant on the satisfaction note recorded on Ex.C-2 is there and as such it has to be held that virtually manufacturing defect is not there, though minor problem of display may be there. That problem always can be rectified by doing appropriate repair and as such complainant entitled to repair of mobile phone in question free of cost and direction to OP No.2 and 3 needs be issued accordingly. Complainant suffered mental agony and harassment and as such he is entitled to compensation and also to litigation expenses, but of reasonable amount. Replacement of mobile phone not warranted, more so when defect surfaced only after 9 months of purchase of mobile and not before that and the pointed out defect can be got removed by change of concerned part. So request of complainant for refund of price is turned down and even request for replacement of mobile is also turned down.
7. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint against OP No.1 dismissed, but the same allowed against OP No.2 and 3 in terms that they will repair the mobile phone in question for making the same functional within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.4,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.4,000/- more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP No.2 and 3. Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation cost be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
November 04, 2019
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
