BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.43 of 2017.
Date of Instt.:20.02.2017.
Date of Decision:06.07.2017
Raj Kumar son of Sheri Chiman Lal resident of Gurunanakpura Mohalla, Fatehabad, Tehsil & District Fatehabad, Haryana.
...Complainant
Versus
1. R.K. Stickers & Mobile Shop, Shop No.14, Palika Bazar Fatehabad, Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Authorized signatory.
2. Samsung Service Centre:0003442186-Mobile Solution G.T. Road, backside Central Bank Fatehabad, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2nd to 4th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul TCH Square, Sector-43, DLF Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana) through its Managing Director.
..Opposite Parties.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. R.S.Panghal, Member.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh.Vinod Kamra, Advocate for the Complainant.
OP No.1 ex-parte.
Sh.Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for OP No.2 and 3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the complainant had purchased Samsung Mobile, Model-Galaxy J-2, having IMEI No.352602/08/046573/2 from OP No.1 for a total consideration of Rs.9600/- vide bill No.4385 dated 03.08.2016. Handset was having a full warranty of one year. After some time the above said mobile set starts working improperly, in this regard complainant visited the shop of OP No.1 many times for repairing of mobile within the prescribed warranty period but the OP No.1 had not paid any heed to the request of the complainant and advised to got the mobile in Samsung Customer Care i.e. OP No.2, complainant visited the OP No.2 to get check the mobile. OP No.2 issued a job sheet to complainant and given back the mobile set with assurance that now your mobile set is OK and it would be worked properly. But after some time the same problem was raised and complainant visited the OP No.2, OP No.2 again delivered the mobile with assurance that your mobile set is OK and it would be worked properly. But the result is same and mobile is not working properly. Complainant visited to OP No.1 and asked him to give the amount of mobile back of Rs.9600/-, for which he flatly refused to make the payment about a week back. The complainant time and again visited OP No.1 and 2 but it neither refunded the cost of the mobile nor repaired the mobile. Hence this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency on the part of the Ops. In evidence the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A and document Annexure C1.
3. In-spite of due service, none appeared on behalf of OP no.1, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.03.2017.
4. OP nos.2 & 3 contested the complaint by filing its joint reply wherein it has taken many preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, suppression of material facts from this Forum and complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer etc. It has been further submitted that one year warranty is subject to warranty conditions and the unit is barred by the warranty due to warrant exclusions i.e.
Liquid logged/water logging
Physically damage.
Serial No. missing Tampering
Mishandling/Burnt etc.
There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and the complainant has never been harassed. It has been further submitted that the OPs are ready to repair the handset of the complainant with another upgraded mobile despite the fact that the handset is running properly but under the garb of this complaint the complainant wants to grab money from the OPs. Other allegations made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. Objections about cause of action, maintainability, locus standi and concealment of material facts from this Forum etc. have also been taken. The evidence of the Ops No.2 & 3 has been closed vide order dated 06.06.2017 after tendering documents Annexure RW1/A and R1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel appearing for OPs and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has come with the plea that the handset did not work properly during the warranty period and the same was deposited with the OP No.1 number of times but the OPs neither repaired the same nor refunded the cost thereof. During the proceedings of the complaint, OP No.1 appeared and made a statement that the OPs are ready to replace the handset. It is not disputed that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant went out of order time and again therefore, the complainant had to approach the OP No.1 many a times and the mobile phone was also deposited with the service centre on many occasions as is evident through Annexure C1 and Annexure C2. The complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 03.08.2016 and lodged a complaint regarding non-working of the handset with the Op No.1 for the first on 28.10.2016 i.e. after using the handset some time and 27.01.2017 second time. Since the complainant is not satisfied with the services of the OPs because it had been failed to redress his grievance, therefore, the end of justice would be met if the OPs are ordered to returned 2/3rd price of mobile. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Accel Frontline Ltd. Vs. Anant Govind Kandeparkar I (2014) CPJ 51 (Goa) wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum that Goods – Mobile phone purchased – Defects – Frequent problems – Warranty period – Rectification not done – Replacement or refund of price sought – District Forum allowed complaint – Hence appeal – Complainant failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove any inherent defect or manufacturing defects – If mobile had any defect it would not have worked well for more than seven months – Board which is required to be replaced is not non to be available as mobile is outdated – Complainant used mobile for some times so he is entitled to get refund of 2/3rd of price of mobile–Impugned order modified.
6. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund cost of the mobile to the complainant after deducting 10% of the cost of the mobile alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization subject to depositing of the handset along with its accessories, if any, with the Ops. Order of this Forum be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum:
Dt.7.07.2017.
.
(Ansuya Bishnoi) (R.S.Panghal) (Raghbir Singh)
Member Member President,
