BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint No.490/2019.
Date of instt.: 20.08.2019.
Date of Decision: 05.02.2020.
Keshav Himani aged 17 years minor through his natural Guardian father Shri Braj Mohan son of Shri Krishan Lal Himani, resident of Nohria Bazar, Ward No.19, District Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Rocky Mobiles Samsung Sale & Purchase, Old Civil Hospital, Dwarkapuri, Sirsa through its Manager.
2. Samsung Indian Electronic Pvt. Ltd. 6th Floor DLF Centre Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110001, through its Managing Director.
3. Samsung Care Centre, Gali Khai Wali, Hissaria Bazar, Near Parshuram Chowk, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: SH.R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA………..MEMBER
Present: Shri D.R. Tantia and Sh. Avdesh Rai, Advocates for the complainant.
Shri Prayag Raj, Advocates for opposite party No.1.
Shri A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Opposite party no.3 exparte.
ORDER
The complainant Keshav Himani who is a minor has filed the present complaint through his father and natural guardian Sh. Braj Mohan against the opposite parties.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a mobile set model Samsung A20 BLUE from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.11,490/- vide receipt dated 19.5.2019 and guarantee and warranty was also given by the company. That after two months the mobile set became defective and display screen was not properly working due to manufacturing defect. The complainant approached to op no.1 to replace the said mobile due to manufacturing defect, but op no.1 sent him to the care centre but care centre did not repair the same and returned unrepaired mobile to him. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op is only the dealer of op no.2 company and the duty of answering op is only to sell the mobile phones manufactured by op no.2 and not more than that. In case of any kind of alleged defect in the handset purchased by complainant from answering op, complainant has to approach the manufacturing company only. The answering op has got no role to play in the matter. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that had the complainant approached the service center of answering op rightfully with correct facts, prompt service would have been provided but rather than doing so, the complainant has preferred the present complaint. It is further submitted that complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product but alleged defect cannot be determined on the simple submissions of complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. The complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/ technical fault. It is further submitted that answering op has an online system to enter all claims/ complaints vide IEMI/ Sr. no. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per limited details mentioned in the complaint, no complaint number, serial no. of unit or valid contact no. or even the date of visit to service centre of answering op has been provided by complainant which means that complainant has never approached to answering op and there is no problem in the unit. It is further submitted that answering op company provides one year warranty on the unit and also warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy and the warranty of the unit is subject to some conditions and same becomes void in case of liquid logged/ water logging, physically damaged and serial number missing, tampering and mishandling/ burnt etc. It is further submitted that if there is any issue in the unit, the answering op is always ready to provide the services as per warranty policy, but as per records of company, the complainant has not reported any issue to the company, so no cause of action arises against answering op. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
5. Opposite party no.3 failed to appear despite service of notice and was proceeded against exparte.
6. The parties then led their respective evidence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished affidavit of Sh. Braj Mohan Ex.CW1/A. He has also furnished copy of terms and conditions of product Ex.C1 and bill Ex.C2. On the other hand, op no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Anup Kumar Mathur as Ex.R1, copy of warranty card Ex.R2. OP no.1 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, proprietor as Ex.RW1/B, copy of details of mobiles Ex.R3, copy of tax invoice Ex.R4, copy of cash memo Ex.R5, copy of registration certificate Ex.R6, copy of details Annexure A Ex.R7 and copy of Annexure B Ex.R8.
9. It is proved fact on record that on 19.5.2019 complainant purchased mobile in question from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.11,490/-, which was manufactured by op no.2. There are specific allegations of the complainant that after sometime of the purchase of mobile, it became out of order as a result of which he approached to op no.1 for replacement of said mobile because mobile was having manufacturing defect and was not working properly. However, op no.2 has denied allegations of complainant. It has been specifically pleaded by op no.2 that complainant never approached service center of op no.2 for check up of the mobile set or its repair. From the evidence of the parties, it is proved fact on record that mobile was not working properly and it will be in the fitness of things, if present complaint is allowed and a direction is given to the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set.
10. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set of the complainant and to make it defect free without any cost even by replacing any part of the mobile within 15 days of the receipt of mobile from the complainant but in case if it is found that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set and same is not repairable and is within warranty period, same shall be replaced with a new one of same make and model or in the alternate the ops shall make refund of the price of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.11,490/- to the complainant within further period of one month, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated:05.02.2020. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
