BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 309 of 2015

Date of Institution:        14.5.2015

Date of Decision:           17.12.2015

Amarjit Singh Son of S. Jagir Singh C/o Kashmir Singh resident of House No. 20, Gali No.1, Moon Avenue, Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

1. M/s. R.K.Electronics Opposite Bata Showroom Hall Bazar,Amritsar through its Prop./Partner
2. M/s. Samsung Service Centre through its Prop./Partner/authorized officer Gali No.4, Vijay Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar
3. M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd. B-1, Sector BI, Phase No.2, Noida District Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pardesh

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  :  In person

               For the Opposite Party No.3       : Ms.Preeti Mahajan,Advocate

               For Opposite parties No.1 & 2: Ex-parte

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Amarjit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that  he purchased Samsung mobile phone from opposite party No.1 for  Rs. 7150/- vide bill dated 27.9.2014. According to the complainant, after four months, mother board of the mobile phone has burnt . Complainant approached opposite party No.2, authorized service centre for repair on 27.1.2015, who demanded Rs. 5700/- for repair of the mobile set. Complainant has alleged that as the mobile set was under warranty period, as such he refused to make the payment to opposite party No.2.  The mobile set is lying with opposite party No.2. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the cost of Rs. 7150/- alongwith interest or in the alternative to replace the mobile set with new one. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.3 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that that the mobile set has been badly mishandled by the complainant.  PBA mother board of the handset was found to be burnt when it was handed over to opposite party No.2 by the complainant on 27.1.2015.  It was submitted that due to burning of the internal part of handset it was not covered under warranty and repair was on chargeable basis. The estimate of the repair was given to the complainant. The hand set was retained by opposite party No.2 for repair and a standby hand set was given to the complainant to use the same till his hand set is being repaired. Opposite party No.2 duly repaired the hand set of the complainant by replacing its PBA mother board and the complainant was called to collect the mobile set on making payment and to return the standby hand set given to him by opposite party No.2 .  But the complainant did not collect the hand set neither returned the hand set of opposite party No.2 given to the complainant as standby hand set. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable  manufacturing defect  nor filed any documentary evidence  i.e. report of expert to prove any alleged defect in the mobile set of the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not appear despite service, as such they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 3.7.2015.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3.
5. Opposite party No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sunil Bhargava, General Manager Ex.OP3/1, letter Ex.OP3/2.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and the ld.counsel for the opposite party No.3 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and the  ld.counsel for opposite party No.3.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Samsung Mobile phone from opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated           27.9.2014 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 7150/-. The complainant submitted that the said mobile phone became defective,its mother board got burnt. The complainant gave mobile set to opposite party No.2, authorized service centre for repair on 27.1.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C-3. Opposite party No.2 demanded Rs. 5700/- for the repair of the mobile set. The complainant submitted that the mobile set was within warranty period. The complainant refused to make the payment of Rs. 5700/- to opposite party No.2. Since 27.1.2015 the mobile set is lying with opposite party No.2 and they failed to repair and return the mobile set to the complainant. Complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
8. Whereas case of opposite party No.3 is that the mobile set has been badly mishandled by the complainant.  PBA mother board of the handset was found to be burnt when it was handed over to opposite party No.2 by the complainant on 27.1.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C-3. The estimate of the repair was given to the complainant. The hand set was retained by opposite party No.2 for repair and a standby hand set was given to the complainant to use the same till his hand set is being repaired. Opposite party No.2 duly repaired the hand set of the complainant by replacing its PBA mother board and the complainant was called to collect the mobile set on making payment and to return the standby hand set given to him by opposite party No.2 .  But the complainant did not collect the hand set neither returned the hand set of opposite party No.2 given to the complainant as standby hand set. The complainant has not proved any specific irreparable manufacturing  defect in the mobile set of the complainant not produced any expert evidence  to prove that the said mobile set of the complainant was having inherent manufacturing defect which is beyond repair. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased Samsung Mobile set from opposite party No.2 vide invoice dated 27.9.2014 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 7150/- and the said mobile set became defective on 27.1.2015 as its mother board was burnt. The complainant handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.2 ,authorized service centre for repair and opposite party No.2 handed over a second hand used standby hand set to the complainant to use the same till his hand set is being repaired. Opposite party No.2 could not repair the mobile set of the complainant and the same is lying with opposite party No.2. No doubt opposite party No.3 has stated that the said mobile set of the complainant has been repaired, but opposite party No.2 did not turn up to prove these facts . Moreoverr, opposite parties could not produce the mobile set of the complainant in this Forum to prove that the same has been fully repaired. The said mobile set was handed over by the complainant to opposite party No.2 for repair as it became defective during the warranty period i.e. on 27.1.2015 ( the mobile set was purchased by the complainant on 27.9.2014). All this fully proves that the opposite party No.2 has failed to repair the mobile set of the complainant and make it fully functional and also failed to return the same to the complainant. However, during the course of arguments in this Forum, counsel for opposite party No.3 submitted that the opposite party No.3 is ready to refund the price of the mobile hand set of the complainant subject to return of the standby hand set given by opposite party No.2 to the complainant for use during the period the mobile set of the complainant is under repair with opposite party No.2 or after deducting the amount of the standby mobile set. The complainant has stated that second hand standby mobile set given by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant for interim use, has been lost and is not traceable and has lodged complaint with the police dated 16.1.2015, copy of which is on record.
10. From the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that mobile set of the complainant is not repairable  , as such opposite party No.3 is ready to refund the price of the mobile set of the complainant subject to deduction of the price of the standby mobile hand set given by opposite party No.2 to the complainant for interim use during the repair period of the mobile set of the complainant. The standby mobile set of the complainant has been lost and is not traceable to the complainant. So opposite party No.3 was justified to deduct the amount of the standby hand set given by opposite party No.2 to the complainant for interim use. In this regard opposite party has produced invoice Ex.OP3/2 of missing handset claiming that the price of that standby hand set was Rs. 5975/-. Opposite party No.3 wants to deduct the full amount of this standby hand set from the price of the mobile set of the complainant, which is not justified because the standby hand set given by opposite party No.2 to the complainant for interim use , was used second hand mobile set. Opposite party can, therefore, deduct half of the price of this standby mobile set from the amount of the price of the mobile set of the complainant.

11.     Resultantly this complaint is disposed of with the directions to opposite parties No.2 & 3 to refund  the price of the mobile set of the complainant after deducting half of the price of the standby mobile set given by opposite party No.2 to the complainant. The price of the mobile set of the complainant was Rs. 7150/- and opposite parties No.2 & 3 are authorized to deduct Rs. 2990/-  from the price of the mobile set of the complainant. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 are directed to refund the balance amount of the price of the mobile set of the complainant Rs. 4160/- (Rs. 7150/- minus Rs.2990/- (half of the price of the standby mobile set) to the complainant  within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which opposite parties No.2 & 3 are liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

17.12.2015                                                           ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/                        ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

Member                                   Member