Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 18.
Instituted on : 10.01.2018.
Decided on : 11.03.2019.
Happy, age 17 years, son of Sh. Parmjeet, Resident of D-115, Near Jind Bye Pass, Anant Puram, Rohtak, Mobile No.8607789700.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Mobile World, near Flour Mill, Opp. Civil Hospital, Gohana Adda, Rohtak, through its Proprietor/Authorized Person.
- B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Jain Mansion HUDA Complex near Old Gymkhana Club, Rohtak-124001.
3. M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122202, through its Managing/Authorized Person.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR.RENU CHAIDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vijay Pal Gehlot, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Ashok Kadian, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party No. 2 already exparte.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for OP No. 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone Samsung J7-Pro, HSN Code 8517, Dual Sim, having IMEI No. 358674080876881 and 358675080876888 from the respondent No.1 vide Invoice No. 193 dated 22.08.2017 for Rs.20,500/- and the same was assured by the OP No. 3 that if the said mobile phone become defective within warranty/guarantee period, then it would be replaced with the new one of same make and model from the date of its purchase. It is alleged that after some days of its purchase, the said mobile started to hang severally, auto switched off or hanged while it was kept in pocket and it had also problems in the sensors of the mobile, power touch and screen/display problems etc. It is further alleged that complainant visited to service center i.e. OP No. 2, but representatives did not issue the job sheet and repair the mobile hand to hand. After that the mobile got hanged and the complainant approached to OP No. 2 on 22.11.2017, then customer care centre deposited the mobile on 22.09.2017 and prepared the Bill of Rs.4,554/- in favour of complainant while the said mobile is in one year warranty period. The complainant visited several times to the OPs No. 1 and 2 but every time they did not give any satisfactory answer and misbehaved with complainant. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay of Rs.20,500/- towards the cost of said mobile and Rs.11,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply submitted that OP No. 1 is only a distributor of Samsung Mobile and in case of any defect in the mobile phone it is the responsibility of company and local service centre to repair the same. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the OP No. 1.
3. Opposite party No. 3 in its reply submitted that OP No. 3 provides warranty of one year but the warranty of the unit is subject to some terms and conditions and the warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions:
i. Liquid Logged/water logging.
ii. Physically Damage.
iii. Serial no. missing.
iv. Tampering.
v. Mishandling/Burnt etc.
It is further submitted that the complainant with regard to complaint regarding his unit approached the service center of answering OP company on 22.11.2017 vide call No. 4250012452 and reported LCD broken problem in his unit. The engineer of the service center checked the unit and found that the LCD of the unit is broken/physically damaged and also on the rear of unit, there was scratches and dent. The engineer told to complainant that the unit cannot be considered under warranty as the unit is damaged/broken due to negligence on part of complainant and as per conditions of warranty, the repair of the unit shall be on chargeable basis. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the OP No. 3.
4. Whereas, on 21.02.2018 none has appeared on behalf of OP No. 2, hence, OP No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.02.2018.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and has closed his evidence on dated 11.10.2018. Ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has made a statement that reply already filed on its behalf be read in evidence and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/2 and closed his evidence on 04.02.2019.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. As per the complainant he had deposited the mobile with respondent no.2 for repair on dated 22.09.2017 but perusal of the para no.3 itself shows that the complainant approached to the customer care on dated 22.11.2017 and he had wrongly mentioned the date that the customer care centre deposited the mobile on 22.09.2017. It is not possible that when the complainant approached the service centre on 22.11.2017 how he can say that the mobile was deposited on 22.09.2017.
8. We have also perused the documents placed on record by the respondent. As per the respondent, LCD of the mobile set was broken and there are some scratches on the rear side of the unit and the mobile set could not be considered under warranty period. As per the respondent no.3 this fact has been told to the complainant that the mobile set could not be considered under warranty because there is a physical damage on the LCD. After that the complainant gave his consent that he will pay the repair charges and after that a bill regarding repair was prepared and the respondent no.3 charged an amount of Rs.4554/- on account of repair of the mobile set because the same was not considered under warranty period as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. The respondents have not placed on record any mechanical report to prove physical damage in the mobile set. They have also not placed on record any evidence or affidavit of the technical person to prove that there was physical damage in the LCD on dated 22.11.2017. As such the objection taken by the opposite party regarding physical damage in the mobile set is turned down and it is observed that the opposite parties have illegally charged the amount of Rs.4554/- from the complainant during the warranty period.
9. However, the complainant has also leveled the allegation that the mobile set could not be properly repaired even after charging of alleged amount and he suffered more problem after the repair of the mobile set. But he has not placed on record any document/job sheet or any material to prove that he had approached to the respondent regarding the defect in his mobile set after repair of mobile set by the opposite parties.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite party No.2 & 3 to refund the amount of Rs.4554/-(Rupees four thousand five hundred fifty four only) illegally charged from the complainant during warranty period alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit of alleged amount till its realization and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.03.2019.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member
