Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/444/2015

Paras Ahluwalia S/o Neeraj Walia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bhalla Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

31 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 444 of 2015

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 8.12.2015

                                                                                    Date of Decision: 31.03.2016.

Paras Ahluwalia aged about 19 years son of Sh. Neeraj Walia, resident of House No. 2220/A, Sector-17, HUDA Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.    

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. M/s Bhalla Communication, Near Laxmi Cinema, Yamuna Nagar its Partner/Prop.
2. Samsung Authorized Care Centre, Near Madhu Hotel, Yamuna Nagar through its Prop./Manager.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Head Office 2^nd, 3^rd floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Gurgaon, through its GM.  

                                                                                                   …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Pankaj Verma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Respondent No.1 ex-parte.

              Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.  

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Paras Ahluwalia has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the defective mobile set with new one or in the alternative to refund the cost of mobile set alongwith interest and further directed to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a mobile set make Samsung Galaxy E-5 bearing IMEI No. 358271061768821/ 358272061768829 for a value of Rs. 16,400/- vide cash Bill No. 10832 dated 22.03.2015 (Annexure C-1) carrying warranty of one year from the Op No.1 manufactured by Op No.3 whose service centre is OP No.2. After few days from the date of purchase, the display of the mobile set in question was not working properly and automatically switch off and hanging problem came in the set and the said set became faulty and immediately the complainant approached the Op No.1 to rectify the defect who advised the complainant to approach the OP No.2 and accordingly the mobile set in question was handed over to Op No.2 on 13.05.2015. Thereafter, the engineer of Op No.2 checked the set in question and after doing something repair returned the same to the complainant. In the month of August 2015 ( 5.8.2015) the same problem i.e. display problem was again arisen in the mobile set  but as the problem was not rectified, so, the complainant had to give his set to the OPs several times with one problem or the other. In the month of December 2015 ( 5.12.2015) again the mobile set was got checked by OP No.2 vide job sheet dated 5.12.2015 who after checking refused to repair the said mobile in question free of costs and told that the set in question was out of warranty whereas the set in question was within warranty as the same was purchased on 22.3.2015. The Ops have not heard the genuine request of the complainant and flatly refused to repair or replace the mobile set. The set in question alongwith back cover and battery is lying with the OP No.2 who is authorized service centre of OP No.3 and he did not return the same till date. As the mobile set in question was having manufacturing defect, hence, there is a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs as the OP No.1 sold a defective mobile set to the complainant manufactured by OP No.3 and OP No.2 could not rectify the problem. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service through process server, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.12.2015. OPs No.2 & 3  appeared and filed its written statement wherein it has been stated that the present complaint is not maintainable, complaint filed without any technical report is not maintainable, the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts, no locus standi, no cause of action. It has been further mentioned that Samsung India Electronics is a well reputed company and engaged in the business of best quality mobile phones alongwith other electronic products throughout India. The company has established a large number of service centre throughout India in order to provide good and satisfactory after sale services to its customers. It has been further mentioned that the complainant approached at the service centre i.e. OP No.2 with regard to unit in broken condition and regarding any the same it was told to the complainant that the warranty of the unit becomes void in case of physical damage/mishandling but the complainant became adamant for free of cost repair and thereafter, the OP No.2 called the complainant telephonically either to approve the estimate or to take back his damaged unit but the complainant did not turn up and filed the present complaint without any cause of action just to grab benefits illegally from the OPs. It is submitted that company provides one year warranty subject to some condition that in case the unit is liquid/water logged, serial number missing, physically damaged, mishandling and tempering. It has been further submitted that the Op company is always at the service of its customers on demand according to terms and conditions of warranty. The OPs No.2 & 3 further submitted that the company provides one year warranty and warranty means repair not replacement and though the warranty is subject to some condition that in case the unit is liquid/water logged, serial number missing, physically damaged, mishandling, tampering. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Bill bearing No. 10832 dated 22.3.2015 as Annexure C-1, Job sheet dated 5.12.2015 as Annexure C-2 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence job sheet dated 5.12.2015 as Annexure R.1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 and 3.   

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is an admitted case of the OPs No.2 & 3 that the complainant purchased the mobile set of Rs. 16400/- vide Bill No.10832 dated 22.3.2015 (Annexure C-1) from OP No.1 and handed over the mobile set in question to Service Centre (OP No.2) for repair whatsoever vide job sheet No. 4205860178 dated 5.12.2015(Annexure C-2). Further the Op No.2 & 3 have also admitted in para No.8 of the reply in preliminary objections that company provides one year warranty.

8.                     The only plea of the OPs is that LCD of the mobile in question was damaged, so ,the mobile set was not repaired by the OPs free of costs and the complainant was asked to approve the estimate of repair but neither he approved the estimate nor collected the mobile set in question from the OPs. This plea of the OPs is not tenable as the OPs has totally failed to file any affidavit of any attending engineer nor it has been specifically mentioned in the written statement that the LCD of the mobile in question was damaged due to manufacturing defect or due to mishandling of the complainant. Now a days mobile companies who deals of manufacturing of mobile sets are selling its product with the inferior quality of glass i.e. LCD just to cheat the innocent customer because generally every person take care of his mobile set properly as it becomes necessity of the life, generally it cannot be presumed that consumer/customer who invest the huge money for purchase the costly mobile phones will not handle his mobile with due care. So, we are of the view that in the absence of cogent evidence and affidavit of the attending engineer that LCD of the mobile in question was damaged due to the manufacturing defect or was due to mishandling of the complainant, it cannot presumed that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile in question.

9.                     Further there is no force in the contentions raised by OPs No.2 & 3 that the complainant was called telephonically but he did not turn up either to approve the estimate of repair or to take back his damaged unit. The OPs have neither produced any record to prove this fact nor brought the set in question before this Forum for handing over the same to the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has lodged his complaint with Op No.2 and also filed the present complaint within warranty period. The mobile set of the complainant is also with the OPs from the last 4 months and now there is no justification to repair the mobile set of complainant at this stage.

10.                   Hence, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that complainant might have suffered some mental agony, harassment etc. due to the defect in the mobile in question which constitute a deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3 and we have no option except to allow the complaint of complainant to refund 80% amount of cost of mobile set as he has used the said mobile set for a period of about 6-7 months.   

11.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Ops No. 2 & 3 to refund an amount of Rs. 13,320/- being 80% of the total cost of mobile set to the complainant within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to recover the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the defaulted period. Ops are also directed to pay Rs 1000/- as compensation and Rs 500/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced :31.03.2016..

 

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA    )

                                                                        MEMBER