BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

Complaint no.230/2016.

Date of instt. 02.09.2016. 

                                                                        Date of Decision: 07.03.2017.

Nivesh Jalan son of Sheri Ram Niwas Jalan, resident of Rohini, Delhi now at Aggarwal Colony, Near Hanuman Mandir Fatehabad District Fatehabad.

                                                                ..Complainant.

                        Versus

1.M/s WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., No.42/1 & 43, Kacherakanahalli village, Jadigenahalli Hobli Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore, Karnataka, India-5602067

2.M/s Mobile Solutions, Palika Bazar, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its proprietor/partner.

3.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Teh Square Sector-43, DLF Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-122002 through its Authorized Signatory.

..Opposite parties.

       Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.   

Before            Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

     Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present :        Sh.M.L.Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.

 Sh. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for OPs.    

ORDER

                      The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he had purchased a mobile Samsung Galaxy On5 bearing IMEI No.354459070776521 by placing an online order at the website of Flipkart.com through OP no.1 vide bill No.DEL_GGN_0120151100061275 dated 21.11.2015 for a sum of Rs.8990/-. The handset in question was having one year warranty.  It has been further averred that from the very beginning it developed problems qua heating, charging, hanging and in touch screen, therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint with OP No.1 through internet but on its instructions relative of the complainant Rakesh Kumar visited OP No.2 on 05.07.2016 where OP No.2 kept the mobile with it and asked said Rakesh Kumar to visit after 5/7 days. Thereafter, the Op No.2 kept the matter delayed on one pretext or the other and refused to repair the mobile with remarks that there is manufacturing defect in the same.  The complainant requested the OPs to replace the mobile but to no effect. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence, this complaint.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure C1 and documents Annexure C2 and Annexure C3.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate replies. OP No. 1 in its reply has asserted in preliminary submissions that complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Forum. It is a registered seller on the website flipkart.com” and sells products of other manufacturers through the website.  It has acquired good market reputation for its range of products offered and for its exceptional customer support. It has been further asserted that it is not engaged in selling of any goods manufactured or produced by its own. As a reseller, its involvement in the entire transaction is limited only to selling the products of various manufacturers. On merits, it has been submitted that its role comes to the end as soon as the product ordered is delivered in good condition at the address provided by the consumer. It is the sole duty of the manufacturer and their authorized service centre to remove the defects, if any to the entire satisfaction of the customer and any warranty and period of warranty is to be provided by the manufacturer of the product. It has been further averred that 30 days replacement warranty provided by Op No.1 also stands expired, therefore, the duty to redress the grievance of the complainant qua any defect in the mobile lies with the manufacturer and service centre. There is no deficiency in service on its part. With these submissions, prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.

3.             OP Nos.2 & 3 in their joint reply have submitted that as and when any matter qua functioning of the mobile is raised before the service centre it is corrected immediately as a matter of priority and had the complainant been approached the service centre in rightful manner then prompt service would have been provided to him.  It has been further submitted that the complaint regarding not functioning of mobile was lodged only on 05.07.2016 for the first time i.e. after about eight months of purchase of the mobile in question on 21.11.2015 and after checking handset the official of service centre told the complainant that damage in the mobile has occurred due to liquid logged, therefore, it can only be repaired on paid basis. It has been further submitted that the mobile set was repaired when the complainant his consent but when he was asked to take the delivery of the handset then he refused to do so and demanded replacement of the mobile. It has been further submitted that the above said problems develops due to mishandling of the unit and the company provides one year warranty of the unit subject to some conditions and warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions:

                1.Liquid logged/water logging

                2.Physically damage.

                3.Serial No. missing

                4.Tampering

                5.Mishandling/burnt etc.

The handset of the complainant is OK and is ready for delivery, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.2 & 3 and the complainant has never been harassed. Other averments made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit of Sh.Anindya Bose as Annexure RW1/A, affidavit of Ms.Swati Singh as Annexure RW2/A and document Annexure R1 on the case file.

4.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OPs and have perused the case file carefully.

5.             There is no dispute that complainant had purchased the mobile Samsung Galaxy On5  through online from OP no.1 for a sum of Rs.8990/- as is evident through Annexure C2. The OP No.3 is manufacturer of the mobile in question and OP No.2 is customer care centre. The complainant in support of his averments has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 wherein he has testified all the facts so set out by him in his complaint. According to the complainant, the mobile in question was having warranty of one year, however, it developed problems from the very beginning and due to this it was brought to the OP No.2 –service centre, as is evident through Annexure C3, but it did not redress his grievance and the OPs had also failed to replace the handset.  The OP Nos.2 & 3 have failed to explain as to why and on what basis they wished to charge from the complainant for getting the mobile set repaired despite the fact that it was under warranty.  The act and conduct of the Ops No.2 & 3 shows that instead of redressing the grouse of the complainant they are trying to avoid the matter on one pretext or the other. It is worthwhile to mention here that The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to provide protection to consumers from getting cheated or harassed by suppli­ers and it is the duty of the Forum to provide a sim­pler and quicker access to redressal of consumer grievances. This forum feel concerned that these days in fast life style of society, cellular set has become part and partial of every person and due to huge demand of mobiles the companies are attracting the customers by adopting different modes of advertisements but at the same time after selling the mobile set oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of mobile set. From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clearly established that the Ops. No.2 & 3 are deficient in providing service and have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant as per his satisfaction. Since there is no specific allegations against the OP No.1 and even it has no role to play in the dispute, therefore, complaint against OP No.1 stands rejected. There is enough on the record that the set in question went out of order within warranty period and the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.2 & 3 as they failed to remove the defect in the mobile during the warranty period.  The complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 23.11.2015 and he had lodged complaint regarding not working of handset properly for the first time on 05.07.2016, which shows that he had used the mobile for 8 months, therefore, the ends of justice would be met if the Ops No.2  & 3 are ordered to return the cost of the mobile with deduction of 25 % being depreciation value of the mobile set. On this point reliance can be taken place from case law decided by Hon’ble SCDRC, Panchkula on dated 28.05.2014 in F.A.No.460 of 2014 in case titled as Deepjot Singh Thukral Vs. The Mobile Store.  Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP Nos.2 & 3 to refund the cost of the mobile with deduction of 25 % being depreciation value of the mobile set, subject to depositing the accessory of the mobile, as the mobile is already lying with OP No.2, with the OPs No.2 & 3 by the complainant. Order of this Forum be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the awarded amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:  

Dt.07.03.2017.                            (Raghbir Singh)

                                                 President,

                                                District Consumer Disputes                                                             Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.

(Ansuya Bishnoi)

 Member