SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Unfair trade practice in connection to allegation of manufacturing defects during the warranty period and its non-rectification of complainant’s mobile handset are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that complainant believing in the name and fame of the SAMSUNG COMPANY purchased a mobile handset from Next mobile service, Kendrapara on dtd. 17.06.2016 by paying an amount of Rs.8,200/- and obtained money receipt. The mobile handset of the complainant was of Model GALAXY J24G(SM-J200G/DD) bearing the IMEI No.359268/07/364819/8 and 3659269/07/364819/6 and the battery No. BDIH504DS2-B. It is revealed from the complaint petition that after use of the set complainant found the set being hot, accordingly complainant met OP No.1 & 2, who assured that after regular operation the hand set will be in O.K. condition, but inspite of the assurance the mobile handset stopped functioning after insert of SIM. On dtd.28.07.2016 the said defects were reported to M/S.Tarini Mobiles, the authorized service centre of SAMSUNG(OP No.2), who received the mobile handset issued and handed over the acknowledgement receipt without mentioning the specific reason of defects. It is further revealed from the complaint petition that on assurance of OP No.2, on dtd.01.08.2016 when complainant was asked to receive the mobile set from OP No.2, the officials of OP No.2 demanded Rs.4200/- as repair charge of the mobile handset, as the handset was within the warranty period. Complainant refused to pay the repair charges. It is alleged that during the pending of mobile handset before OP No.2, the staff of the OP No.2 with ulterior motive damaged the major components willfully. The non-repair and non-functioning of mobile handset during the existence of warranty period gives mental agony and emotional pain to the complainant, hence the complaint before the Forum with prayer that a direction may be given to Ops to handover the mobile phone through this Forum or to replace the set with another new set of same mobile or other model of same price with 2 per cent interest per month from date of purchase and to pay Rs.23,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with cost of litigation.
3. Being noticed Next Mobile, Kendrapara,OP N o.1 appeared into the dispute through their Ld. Counsel and filed written statement submitted that complainant purchased a mobile handset of SAMSUNG COMPANY. On the allegation as per the complaint, the OP No.1 suggested the complainant to put forth his complaint before OP No.2 & 3 as they are authorized to repair or replace the set. It is submitted that the complaint be dismissed against OP No.1 as he is not a part of the unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.
Upon receipt of notice, Tarini Mobiles(OP No.2) and SAMSUNG INDIA Electronics Pvt.Ltd.(OP No.3) made their appearance through Ld. Counsels and filed joint written statement into the dispute by way of preliminary objection, reply on merits and facts of the dispute. In the preliminary- objection answering Ops raised the maintainability of the complaint, which are formal in nature. The answering OPs on reply of merits vehemently denies the allegations of the complainant and on facts of the dispute by admitting the purchase of mobile hand set from OP No.1 dealer on dtd.17.06.2016 along with its warranty, which expires on dtd.16.06.2017. It is also averred that one Biswa ranjan das, the family member of the complainant on dtd.28.07.2016 produced the mobile handset before SAMSUNG authorized service centre(OP No.2), which was feceived by the staffs of OP No.2 after filling up the job card and assured Mr. Biswaranjan to call back after its repair. On the request of Mr. Biswa Ranjan, OP No.2 handed over a used mobile set vide Model No.GT-E2202,Sl.No.RZID1489WAY, white color for use of the complainant till the repair of the defective mobile hand set. It is further averred that on detection of the defect of handset staffs of OP No.2 found that the LCD of the mobile do not function due to immersion of water into it as the particular defect in the mobile hand set is excluded from the terms and conditions of warranty and without any repair the cause of defects were intimated to the complainant. Further, on dtd.02.08.2016 on completing the formalities informed the OP No.3 manufacturing company about the cause of the defect and OP No.3 advised the OP No.2 to repair the set on payment basis and an estimate for repair was prepared to an amount of Rs.4149/- and OP No.2 also informed the complainant, but OP No.2 did not turn up to take back the alleged mobile handset nor returned back the used mobile handset. Under the said circumstances, the answering Ops seeks dismissal of the complaint describing the complaint as vague, baseless and frivolous and further action may be initiated against complainant U/S-26 of C.P.Act,1986.
4. Heard the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP No.1 and case of the OP No.2 & 3 on merit and perused the documents, i.e. self attested photo copies of money receipts, job card issued by OP No.2 on dtd.28.07.2016 and copy of the warranty card produced by the complainant. Ops have not produced any documentary evidence. The admitted fact of the case as revealed from the documents, complaint and written statement of Ops that complainant had purchased one mobile hand set from OP No.1 on dtd.17.06.2016 manufactured by SAMSUNG India Pvt. Ltd.(OP No.3) by paying an amount of Rs.8200/- and complainant received money receipts and warranty card against the purchase of the mobile hand set and it is also admitted that the disputed mobile handset was produced before authorized service centre(OP No.2) for its defect during the existence of the warranty period. It is further admitted that the mobile set till-date remains with the authorized service centre for its repair and delivery to the complainant.
The allegation of the complainant based on charging of repair cost of the mobile hand set Rs.4200/- as illegal, because the defects were detected after few days of purchase of mobile handset and during the existence of the warranty period. It is the further case of the complainant that with ill intention of the staffs of OP No.2 who caused damaged if any to the set. On the other hand the answering Ops 2 & 3 countering the allegation states that as water immersed into the mobile hand set of the complainant such defects occurred and the defects in the mobile had set caused due to misuse by the customer and the said defect does not cover within the terms and conditions of the warranty. In this aspect both the parties have failed to produce any evidence to substantiate their allegations. Further, the job card issued by OP No.2,authorized service station no way disclose that the defects ian the disputed mobile set occurs due to water immersion or liquid logged. It is also clear that till-date the mobile hand set is not delivered due to dispute on payment of repair charge between the parties. As per the complaint prior to dtd. 28.07.2016 the date of handing over the hand set to OP No.2, it was detected that the mobile set was unusually hot after its operation which was reported to OP No.1 dealer and OP No.2 authorized service centre, who assured the complainant that the alleged defects will be eradicated within few days of regular operation. In the facts and circumstances, it is clear that the defects in the mobile hand set occurs during the existence of the warranty period, and the reasons of defect no solid evidence is produced before the Forum to decide the fate of the case. Accordingly, we feel that if the disputed mobile set is repaired without charging any extra cost of repair, it will fulfill the grievance of the complainant-customer. The claim of the complainant claiming compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation, we think the same is having without any basis and justification. It is also revealed from the written statement of OP No.2 & 3 that on the request of the authorized person Mr. Biswa ranjan of complainant-customer provided a used mobile hand set bearing Model No.GT-2202,Sl.No.R21D1489AWY to overcome the difficulties during the repair period of defective set. We appreciate the customer friendly attitude of the Ops. In the present dispute, we do not see any fault of the OP No.1-dealer as he is no way related to be a part of the alleged defects and its repair except the saling of the mobile set to the complainant, accordingly, we freed OP No.1-dealer from the allegation of unfair trade practice.
Having observations reflected above, it is directed that OP N o.2 will hand over the mobile handset as per the description of the job card to complainant removing all the defects, without charging any cost for repair. It is further directed that complainant will return the used mobile handset as per the description in our observation before OP No.2 authorized service centre. The order is to be carried out within one month of receipt of this order, failing which action will be initiated against the defaulting parties for non-compliance of the order as per the provisions of C.P.Act,1986.
Complaint is allowed in part without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 21th day of March,2017.
