Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 651.
Instituted on : 15.11.2017.
Decided on : 13.03.2019.
Subhash s/o Sh.Jeet Singh H.No.61-61, Narayan Aasharam, Near C.R.Stadium Sheela byepass, Rohtak, Age 30, Mb. 9991091095.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- R.S.Enterprises,. Plot No.2, 3rd floor Pvt. Office no.305 Veer Savarkar Block Shakarpur New Delhi-110091 through Flipkart.
- B2X Service Solutions India Pvt., Ltd., Jain Mansion, Huda Complex, Rohtak.
- Samsung Mobile Phones, Head office Sector-31, Gurgaon through its director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.K.Dahiya, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Opposite party No.1 & 2 already expearte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile phone from the opposite party No.1 through online shopping website Flipkart for a sum of Rs.21900/- on dated 05.11.2016. That in the month of January 2017 the above said mobile phone started creating problems like battery backup up, heating problem, network drop, hanging issue sometime. That complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 19.01.2017 and deposited his mobile phone for repairing and the same was returned to complainant after few days of its repairing. But after some days the mobile again started creating same problems and on 04.11.2017 Rs.177/- was charged from the complainant within warranty period and again the mobile set started creating problems in its LCD screen. That the act of opposite parties of selling the defective mobile and not repairing/replacing the mobile within warranty period is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile set i.e. Rs.21900/- alongwith interest, compensation qua harassment and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.2 received back duly served and notice sent to opposite party no.1 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. As such opposite party no.2 vide order dated 10.01.2018 and opposite party No.1 vide order dated 19.02.2018 were proceeded against exparte respectively. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that opposite party provides one year warranty on the unit. That complainant in regard to his complaint approached the company on dated 19.01.2017 and the engineer of the service centre checked the unit and resolved the issue by replacement of PBA, SUB PBA & GLASS of the unit. The unit become O.K. and complainant took the delivery of unit to his full satisfaction. That after that complainant again approached the opposite party on 04.11.2017, the problem was reported by complainant of hanging issue and on checking it was found that the Rear of the unit was bend and also the back glass of the unit was loose due to negligence/mishandling on the part of the complainant. Hence the repair was on chargeable basis and the estimate was given to the complainant but the complainant did not approve the same and directly filed the present complaint. That the opposite party is ready to provide as per warranty policy i.e. paid repair. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 27.07.2018. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on dated 08.01.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that complainant had purchased the mobile set on 05.11.2016, thereafter, complainant contacted the OPs/Service Center on 19.01.2017 and as per job sheet Ex.C1 dated 19.01.2017 there were issues like battery back up, heating, network and hanging issues. Thereafter the defects appeared on 04.11.2017 and as per job sheet Ex.C4 the opposite party charged Rs.177/- by showing the mobile out of warranty whereas the mobile was within warranty period and the complainant has made an endorsement on the job sheet that he is not satisfied. In their written reply they have pleaded that the Rear of the unit was bend and also the back glass of the unit was loose due to negligence/mishandling on the part of the complainant but the respondents have not placed on record any mechanical report or affidavit of the technical person to prove mishandling in the mobile set. Hence the charging of Rs.177/- during warranty period from the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant mobile in question is still not working properly.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that since the defect firstly appeared within one month and thereafter the complainant used the mobile uninterruptedly for 10 months. Hence in our view, it would be suffice to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 40% depreciation on it. As such complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 40% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.13140/-(Rupees thirteen thousand one hundred forty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.11.2017 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving of awarded amount.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.03.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
