Punjab

Hoshiarpur

CC/14/265

Vishal Thakur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prasher Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ashutosh Sharma

25 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOSHIARPUR
(3RD FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, HOSHIARPUR)

                             Complaint No. 265 of 2014.
            Date of Institution: 10.12.2014.
             Date of order: 25.03.2015.

Vishal Thakur S/o Sh.Naresh Kumar, V.P.O. Patial, Tehsil & Distt. Hoshiarpur. 

        Complainant.
           VERSUS

1.Prasher Telecom, Mall Road, Near Shimla Pahari Chowk, Hoshiarpur, through its proprietor. 

2.M/s. Service Point, D.S., 470, Mall Road, Hoshiarpur through its proprietor. 

3.Samsung Mobiles Ltd. 2nd floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Sequre, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122002. 

       Opposite parties. 

Complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Quorum:    Sh. Naveen Puri, President.
    Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary, Member.
    Mrs. Sushma Handoo,Member. 

Present:     Sh.Ashutosh Sharma,Adv. counsel for the complainant.
      Sh.Satish Kumar Rayat, Adv. Counsel for the Ops. 

ORDER 

NAVEEN PURI, PRESIDENT
1.      Complainant Vishal Thakur has filed the present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the C.P. Act) through which he has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to replace the Samsung mobile “S-3 Neo” Modal and pay the amount which was paid by him to the opposite party no.1 at the time of purchasing the mobile. He has claimed Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by him and also Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. 
2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a “SAMSUNG S-3 NEO” Mobile Modal, IMEI-No.3526070609118 from the opposite party no.1 vide receipt No.S14/634 dated 19.7.2014 for an amount of Rs.20500/-. It was stated that at the time of purchase of mobile the opposite party no.1 gave the warranty of one year and ensured the complainant that if any technical defect will occur in the mobile set then the same will be repaired or replaced by them. It was further stated that some technical defects had been occurred which relates to the Heat up, sensor problem and software problem, battery backup. Complainant approached the opposite party no.1 and told them about this and asked them to solve these problems. Opposite party no.1 asked the complainant to approach the opposite party no.2. It was further stated that opposite party no.2 checked the above said mobile and said that it will take time to repair and they said that mobile has some software problem and they gave the job sheet dated 18.9.2014 to the complainant and handed over the mobile set to the complainant after repair on the same day. After some time same problems had occurred and complainant approached the opposite party no.2. They kept the mobile with them and told the complainant that the same will be sent to the company for its repair and they will return the same to him after 5/6 days. The job sheet dated 4.10.2014 was also given to the complainant. After 5/6 days mobile set was handed over to the complainant by the opposite party no.2 but after some time same problems were found in it like as sensor problem, heat up, battery backup etc. then complainant again approached the opposite party no.2 and disclosed these problems of the mobiles and asked them either to change it or to repair it properly but they refused to repair or replace the same, hence this complaint. 
3.        Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complainant has not got any permission from this Hon’ble Forum under section 11 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to file the present complaint as the opposite party has no branch office in the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party to file the present complaint. It was submitted that complainant approached the opposite party no.2 i.e. authorised service centre for the first time on 18.9.2014 after the purchase of handset on 19.7.2014 with problem of heat up and sensor not working. The handset was duly checked by the opposite party no.2 in the presence of the complainant and returned the same to him in OK condition to his satisfaction. It was submitted that the performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product apart from installation and downloading of various mobile applications, games and other software. The problem of heat up, less battery backup, sensor problem arose when the handset is loaded with non compatible mobile applications and games. It was further stated that complainant approached the opposite party no.2 on 18.9.2014 and on 4.10.2014 and on that dates problems were duly rectified and handset was delivered to the complainant in OK condition. It was also stated after 4.10.2014 complainant never approached the opposite party no.2 with the same problems. On merits, it is admitted that complainant has purchased Saumsung mobile S-3 NEO for Rs.20,500/- from the opposite party no.1 vide bill No.S-14/634 dated 19.7.2014. It is also admitted that warranty of one year has been given to the complainant from the date of purchase. It was submitted that there is some technical problems like heat up, sensor and battery backup due to mishandling of the handset by the complainant. It is denied that complainant approached the opposite party no.1 and told them about these problems. It is also denied that opposite party no.1 told the complainant to approach the opposite party no.2. It is submitted that the mobile set was checked by the opposite party no.2 and said that handset has software problem due to loading and installation of non-compatible mobile application and games leading to corruption of software which results in heating up, low battery backup and sensor problem. It was further submitted opposite party no.2 issued job sheet dated 18.9.2014 and returned back the handset on the same day in OK condition to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is denied that after some time same problem has been occurred in the said mobile and complainant again approached the opposite party no.2. It was submitted that complainant approached the opposite party no.2 on 4.10.2014 and opposite party no.2 retained the handset for inspection and rectification of problem. It was stated that the problem in the handset duly rectified and the same was made OK to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is also denied that opposite party no.2 told the complainant that the mobile will be sent to the company for repair and they will return the same after 5/6 day. It was submitted that job sheet dated 4.10.2014 was issued to the complainant. It is denied that same problem has again occurred in the mobile phone and complainant approached the opposite party no.2 and they refused to repair the same. It was stated that complainant never approached the opposite party no.2 after 4.10.2014 with the same problem. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs. 
4.       Parties have led their evidence supported by the duly produced documents and their learned counsels have put forth their respective arguments that have been duly considered and evaluated along with all other material available on record. 
5.      From  the pleadings and evidence on record, it is an admitted case of both the parties that the complainant purchased the Samsung S-3 NEO Mobile from  the opposite party No.1  on 19.7.2014 for Rs.20,500/- as such is a consumer of the opposite parties. It is the case of the complainant that the mobile phone got technical problem which relates to the heating up, sensor problem, software problem and battery backup problem  and when he approached the opposite party No.1 he asked the complainant to visit the opposite party No.2, who is the service centre of opposite party No.3. The complaint was registered and job sheet was issued on 18.9.2014  which is mark C3. The handset was returned to the complainant after repair on the  same day.  It is further the case of the complainant that despite effecting repairs the mobile  phone in question again got same problems and he again approached the opposite party No.2. The job sheet was issued on 4.10.2014 and after  5/ 6 days the mobile was handed over to the complainant by the opposite party No.2. But after some time the mobile phone got the same problems and is still defective and as  such demanded the replacement of the same. Whereas,  case of the opposite parties is that complainant approached opposite party No.2 with the alleged problems in his mobile on 18.9.2014 and 4.10.2014 and on  both occasions opposite party No.2 rectified the problems  and handset was delivered back in 'OK' condition. The opposite party No.2  has never refused to repair  the handset  and as such  there  is no deficiency  in service on their part. 
6.    From the entire above discussion we find that according to the complainant the mobile phone in question developed certain defects  in it and he approached the opposite party No.2 with a complaint. The opposite party No.2  issued job sheets dated 18.9.2014  and 4.10.2014 Mark C3 & Mark C4. The opposite party has taken objection in its written statement that phone was not in warranty. It is pertinent to mention  here that mobile  phone was purchased on 19.7.2014   vide  bill mark C2 and it developed certain defects after two months.  As such, the mobile phone was under warranty.  The handset is still defective and no useful purpose will be solved if the same is again sent for repairs and as such we find that there  indeed has been an infringement of consumer rights of the complainant  and thus order the opposite parties No.2 & 3 to replace the mobile  phone under question with a new mobile of the same model or alternatively refund the full cost/price of the mobile as charged from the complainant with 9% interest from the date of order till actually paid within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the  proceedings u/s 27 CPA shall be initiated against the opposite parties No.2 & 3 and also to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copy of the order be communicated  to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record.
Announced.
25.03.2015

                      (Naveen Puri )
                                                         President 

        (Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary)    (Mrs. Sushma Handoo) 
                Member                             Member 
MK