DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
Complaint No. : 100
Date of Institution: 24.03.2017
Date of Decision : 15.09.2017
Mohit Kataria aged about 36 years S/o Sh. Yashpal Kataria R/o Krishna Street No.1, Fouji Road, Kotkapura Tehsil Kotkapura, Distt. Faridkot. Mob:99140-52484
...Complainant
Versus
- Friends Communications, opposite City Kotwali, near Bhai Kanhaiya Chowk, Faridkot through its Prop.
- Jai Durga Telecom, Opp. Easy Day Faridkot Road, Kotkapura Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot, through its Prop.
- Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044 through its Incharge/Manager.
.....Opposite Parties (Ops)
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Sh. Purshotam Singla, Member.
Present: Sh. A.K. Chawla, Ld Counsel for complainant
Sh. A.K. Monga, Advocate, Counsel for OP-1
OP-2 Exparte
Sh. Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-3.
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs for not repair or replacing the Samsung Mobile G531 ( Golden) with IMEI No.355261/07/361478/5 and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 20,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and Rs 5,000/-as litigation expenses.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 30.03.2016 the complainant purchased the mobile set fully detail in the head note from OP-1 which is manufactured by OP-3 for a sum of Rs.9900/-. After sometime of purchase the mobile started giving problem and it was becoming hanged, re-starting and the applications were also not being downloaded. On it, the complainant approached to OP-1 and told him, who advised to approach to OP-2 which is Authorized Service Centre of OP-3. The complainant approached OP-2 and lodged complaint on 08.09.2016. On it, OP-2 changed the mother board of the said mobile and handed over the same to the complainant and he did not issue any job sheet. After some time same problem again occurred in the mobile and he again approached the OP-2 with same problem vide complaint dated 14.02.2017 and OP-2 again changed the mother board of the mobile set but the problem could not be resolved, the complainant again approached the OP-2 time and again but to no effect and ultimately on 21.03.2017 the OPs flatly refused to repair the mobile or replace the same though the mobile is still under warranty period which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The act and conduct of the Ops for not repairing the mobile or replacing the same caused to great mental tension, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant. Complainant prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief.
3 The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28.03.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.
4. On receipt of the notice OP-1 appeared in this Forum through Counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and the same is liable to be dismissed. As per terms of the sale printed on the concerned bill, the service if any is to be provided by the authorized service centre of the company, as such no liability is attach to OP-1. However, OP-1 is admitted that the complainant purchased mobile phone from him as alleged by him. The OP denied that the complainant ever approached to OP-1 with regard to any problem of the mobile set. There is no after sale service was to be provided by the OP-1, the service if any is to be provided by the authorized service centre of the company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and the complaint against OP-1 is liable to be dismissed.
5. Notice sent to the OP-2 through registered post. RC containing copy and summons were sent to OP-2 and same has not been received back undelivered, so for as per office report. Otherwise period of 30 days has elapsed. Acknowledgment must have been mis-laid or lost in the transit. Therefore, OP-2 is proceeded against exparte on 15.05.2017.
6. On receipt of the notice, OP-3 appeared through Counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the present complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich him at the cost of answering respondent by filing frivolous claim and deserves dismissal on this ground alone. Till date the complainant has submitted his handset with authorized service only on 07.09.2016 and then on 13.02.2017 with problem of network, apps showing error which was a minor problem which was duly rectified and handset returned to complainant after due rectification. Thereafter, complainant never submitted his handset in question for any kind of repair. There is no consumer dispute between the complainant and OP-3. The complainant is not entitled for any relief from this Forum as he has concealed the true and material facts and the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands. The handset in question has been alleged to be purchased on 30.03.2016 and till date it has been submitted with authorized Service Centre OP-2 only on 07.09.2016 and then on 13.02.2017, as the handset was under warranty the reported problem was duly rectified by OP-2 without any charges and handset is delivered in 'OK' condition to the complainant. Thereafter complainant has never reported any problem in his handset. This shows that there is no defect in the handset and it is perfectly working. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the present complaint is gross abuse of the process of law and is totally false and frivolous. The handset in question has been mishandled by complainant leading to problem. There is no inherent defect in the handset. Thus no cause of action arose to complainant to file the preset complaint. The obligation of the answering respondent under warranty is to set right the mobile hand set by repairing or replacing the defective parts subject to warranty terms and conditions as mentioned in warranty card. In the present case the mobile has been mishandled leading to problem which was duly rectified by replacing the PBA board of the handset to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence. In the absence of any independent expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent. The answering respondent or its service centre has never denied after sales services and they are still ready to provide further service if required subject to warranty terms. The complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention to extract money from the answering respondent by dragging in unwanted litigation. The complaint of the complainant against answering respondent is liable to be dismissed with cost. On merits, OP-3 denied all the allegations and reiterated the pleas taken in preliminary objections.
7 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and document Ex C-2 and then closed his evidence.
8 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, OP-1 tendered in evidence, affidavit of Satish Vij, as Ex OP-1/1 and OP-3 has tendered affidavit of Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager as Ex OP-3/1 and then, closed the evidence.
9 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. The case of the complainant is that on 30.03.2016 he purchased a mobile set make Samsung from OP-1 manufactured by OP-3 for sum of Rs.9900/-, there was one year warrant on the said mobile set. After some time the purchase it started giving problems and use to hanged, restarting and the applications also not downloaded. He approached to OP-2 on advise of OP-1 who is authorized Service Centre on 08.09.2016. The OP-2 repaired the hand set and changed the mother board and handed over the same to the complainant but after sometime the same problem again occurred and complaint again on 14.02.2017 approached to OP-2, who again changed the mother board of the mobile but the problem could not be resolved. He visited the OP-2 time and again but to no effect and on 21.03.2017 OPs refused to repair or replace the mobile though it was under warranty.
On the other hand, OP-1 admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set from them as alleged by them, he argued that after sale of mobile the complainant never approached with them to any complaint with mobile phone. He argued that he is only a retailer. All the guarantees and warrantees on the product are given by the manufacturer and all the services if any is to be provided by the manufacturer through their authorized service centre and no such liability attached to the reseller after sale of product. In the present case also the mobile set is manufacturing by OP-3 and the warranty given by OP-3. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the present complaint may be dismissal against them.
10. Ld. Counsel for OP-3 admitted that the mobile set in question is manufactured by them and complainant purchased the same from OP-1 and there was warranty for the period of one year. They further admitted that complainant approached the OP-2 which is authorized service centre on 07.09.2016 and 13.02.2017 with the problem of network, apps showing error which was duly rectified and hand set returned to the complainant after due rectification by replacing PBA board of the hand set to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant never submitted his hand set in question for any kind of repair, it means that set is perfectly working and there is no fault in the hand set and handset in question has been mishandled by complainant leading to problem. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence. The complainant filed the false and frivolous complaint with ulterior motive to extract money from the OPs and deserves dismissal.
Now, it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant purchase the mobile hand set from OP-1 which is manufactured by OP-3 as alleged by him and there was one year warranty against any defect in the hand set. It is further admitted that complainant approached to OP-2 i.e. authorized service centre of OP-3 with a problem in the hand set on 07.09.2016 and 13.02.2017 and OP-2 repaired the hand set by replacing the PBA board of the hand set. It is also proved that the despite repair the hand set is still not working perfectly and the problem in the hand set is still persist and it seems that there is some manufacturing defect in the hand set which cannot be repaired. The selling of defective and inferior quality products and not providing adequate after sale services of product to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP-2 & 3 which are manufacturer and authorized service centre.
11. In the light of above discussion, the complaint in hand is allowed against OP-2 & 3 and dismissed against OP-1 who is only reseller and all guarantees and warranties is given on the product by a manufacturer i.e. OP-3. The OP-2 & 3 are directed to replace the mobile set in question with a new mobile hand set same make and model within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. OP-2 & 3 are further directed to pay consolidated compensation on account of harassment as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. OPs directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum:
Dated: 15.09.2017
Member President
(Purshotam Singla) (Ajit Aggarwal)
