BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.156/17.
Date of instt.: 12.06.2017.
Date of Decision:16.01.2018.
Lokesh Raheja s/o Shri Madan Lal Raheja, r/o House No.107/12, Opp. Jaat School, Karnal Road, Kaithal, near Petrol Pump, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Samsung Service Centre through its Manager Bharti Communication, #117, Lala Lajpat Rai Shopping Complex, Kaithal now Padma City Mal Kaithal through its Proprietor.
- M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., through its Manager/Managing Director, A25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present: Shri Hardeep Ranu, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER
(HARISHA MEHTA, MEMEBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a mobile handset make Samsung Model Galaxy Note-3 IMEI No.351540061991311 vide Invoice No.BLR_WFLD20151001404742 dt. 26.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.18,249/- from OP No.2 through WS Retail Service Pvt. Ltd./Flipkart.com vide Online shopping order ID No.OD104183111535251000 dt. 16.10.2015 with one year warranty. It is further alleged that the said mobile set was not working properly and started creating problems i.e. network programming, charging & heat up. It is further alleged that he deposited the said mobile with OP No.1 for repair on 15.09.2016 and thereafter, on 26.09.2016, but after some days both times, OP No.1 returned the said mobile set to him by saying that they had repaired it, but they did not remove the defects. It is further alleged that lastly he deposited the mobile with OP No.1 on 05.10.2016 and since then the mobile set is lying with OP No.1 vide job sheet dt. 05.10.2016. It is further alleged that on asking of Op, he submitted required documents with Ops, but they refused to refund the sale price to him by saying that there is no defect in the mobile set and Email sent to him and in reply, he also detailed Email to the authorized representative of company namely Sushma Sharma. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, both OPs appeared before this forum and filed their joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the complainant has not impleaded the retailer from whom the product in question has been purchased, who is also one of the necessary party to the present complaint; that the complainant alleged manufacturing defects in the product, which cannot be determined on the simpliciter submissions of the complainant and needs proper analysis test report to confirm the same; that the complainant approached the service centre of Op on 15.9.2016 and on checking, no issue was found and software of unit was updated, which is not a defect; that unit was purchased on 26.10.2015 and the complainant reported the issue on 15.9.2016, which means till date 15.9.2016, the unit was working fine; that on 26.9.2016 the complainant approached the OP and reported the network problem and the engineer told that this issue is due to change in setting of a function in the unit i.e. SAFE MODE FUNCTION and the engineer made Safe Mode Function of the unit OK and complainant took the delivery of unit to his full satisfaction; that again on 05.10.2016, the complainant approached the Ops and this time, reported the issue to charging and the engineer of OP checked and resolved this issue by replacing PBA of the unit; that again the complainant approached the OPs on 29.10.2016 and reported network problem in the unit, the engineer checking and no issue was found and just only to refresh the unit, the software of the unit got updated and after that, the service center contacted the complainant by sending letter dt. 12.05.2017 and told that the unit is ready for delivery, but the complainant did not took the delivery of the unit and started demanding replacement/refund of the unit and filed this complaint; that the OPs provided one year warranty which means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced; that the OPs is still ready to deliver the unit which is lying at the service centre of the OPs in OK condition. On merit, the rest of contents of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C-1, Mark C-1 to Mark C-4 and closed evidence on 03.10.2017. On the other hand, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; documents Annexure R-1 and closed evidence on 20.11.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased a mobile handset make Samsung Galaxy Note-3 for a sum of Rs.18,249/- from OP No.2 through Online shopping vide Invoice No.BLR_WFLD20151001404742 dt. 26.10.2015. As per the complainant, the said mobile set was not working properly and there is continuously problem of network programming, charging and heat up and he visited the OP No.1 two times firstly on 15.9.2016 and thereafter on 26.9.2016 and both times after some days, the OP No.1 returned the mobile set without removing these defects. Thirdly the complainant approached to OP No.1 on 05.10.2016 vide job sheet dt. 05.10.2016 (Ex.C1) regarding issue of Charging+ Network Pro and as per the complainant, the OPs told him that his handset has been damaged and they are ready to refund the sale price of mobile and as per their directions, the complainant deposited the required documents with OPs, but now the OPs refused to refund the sale price of mobile. In the job sheet (Ex.C1) the OP No.1 admitted that the mobile in question is within warranty and also having problems of “Charging+Network Pro”, but the OP No.2 did not resolve these defects in the mobile in question. On the other hand, it is contended by the ld. counsel for the OP No.2 that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering respondents as OPs removed the defects in the mobile in question. The complainant has to prove his case himself by producing cogent evidence. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A; job sheet Ex.C1, invoice Mark C2 and copies of Email Mark C1 and C3. Whereas, on the other hand, the OPs have also failed to prove on the file that the defect of the mobile set in question was removed by them every time and the mobile set in question has no manufacturing defect. The version of the complainant regarding defects in the mobile set in question has been supported by affidavit, whereas, on the other hand, as already stated above, the OPs have not produced any evidence to prove their contentions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the mobile set in question of the complainant became defective within the warranty period and he approached the OPs various times, but the Ops have failed to resolve the grievance of the complainant. Hence, the OPs have committed an act of unfair trade practice, so the OPs are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
6. During the arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant has purchased a new mobile set and in the interest of justice, the cost of mobile may please be got returned from the OPs. In this regard, we can rely upon the authority decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana bearing first appeal No.460 of 2014 decided on 28.05.2014 titled as Deepjot Singh Vs. The Mobile Store. The complainant had used the mobile set for about eleven months, so, keeping in view the above citation, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be met if the cost of mobile set be ordered to be refunded after making 40% depreciation of the same.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OPs to pay Rs.10949/- the cost of the mobile set after deducting 40% depreciation i.e. (Rs.18249/- less Rs.7300/-=Rs.10949/-), subject to deposit of mobile set & its accessories with the service-centre of OPs. All the OPs are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its payment. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.16.01.2018.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
Present: Shri Hardeep Ranu, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, Advocate for Ops.
Remaining arguments not advanced. On request, case is adjourned to 11.01.2018 for remaining arguments.
Dated:22.12.2017. Member Presiding Member.
Present: Shri Hardeep Ranu, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, Advocate for Ops.
Remaining arguments not advanced. On request, case is adjourned to 16.01.2018 for remaining arguments.
Dated:11.1.2018. Member Presiding Member.
Present: Shri Hardeep Ranu, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, Advocate for Ops.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is partly allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:16.01.2018. Member Presiding Member.
