Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/837/2017

Focusbig Entertainment LLP - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Digital - Opp.Party(s)

Gagandeep Singh Adv.

09 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	837/2017
Date of Institution	:	26.10.2017
Date of Decision	:	09/04/2018

 

                                                

                                                         

Focusbig Entertainment LLP, Flat No.317, Tricity Plaza Building Peermuchalla Zirakpur, Punjab through its Authorized Representative Amit Bansal.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.       Reliance Digital, Plot No.178-A, Elante Mall, Industrial and Business Park, Phase-1, Chandigarh -160002 through its concerned Retailer/Seller/Owner.

 

2.       Samsung Service Centre, Mobile Solutions, SCO 48, First Floor, Phase-5, Mohali-160059 through its Branch Manager.

 

3.       Samsung Head Office, Samsung Indian Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Center, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF PH-V, Gurgram, Haryana -122202 through its Manager.

 

4.       Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044 through its Manager.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:      SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by:

Sh.Gagandeep Singh, Adv. for the complainant

Sh.Sanjiv Pabbi, Adv. for OP No.1

Ms.Neeru Sharma, Advocate for OPs No.2 to 4.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a mobile phone make Samsung Note-V from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 21.11.2016 for Rs.40,900/-. After 2-3 months of its purchase, the mobile phone started showing the symptoms regarding swelling of battery and dropping of the same from 80% to 20% in 10 minutes and overheating of the mobile set.  Besides this, the mobile phone started restarting again and again and its applications could not be opened or get hanged after 2-3 minutes. He approached the service center i.e. OP No.2 vide job sheet dated 25.09.2017 who showed its inability to resolve the issue by saying that if they tried to repair the mobile phone then there is risk  to its touch screen. According to the complainant he sent e-mails to one of the business partner of the OPs to resolve the issue and in response to which he sent reply that they would like to propose 5 months extended warranty for the mobile hand post proper inspection which means that the mobile phone is a defective and faulty product.  It has been averred that he kept visiting OP No.2 to get the issues resolved but to no effect.  Finally, he got served a legal notice upon OP No.3 for rectification of the defect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           In its written statement,  OP No.1 has admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone in question. It has been pleaded that the complaint qua it is not maintainable because the complainant admittedly contacted OPs No.2 to 4 knowing fully well that answering OP has no role to play in it and no liability can be fastened upon it for any kind of defect as alleged. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           In their written statement, OPs No.2 to 4 have pleaded that they vide e-mail dated 26.09.2017 offered for the repair of the mobile phone with five months extended warranty post proper inspection.  However, the complainant deliberately refused to accept the same. It has been pleaded that the same was offered as a special case though the warranty was only for one year.  It has been pleaded that on physical inspection of the mobile phone, it was found that the mobile phone was physically damaged/having dents.  It has been pleaded that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile phone in question. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.           We have heard the Counsel for the parties and gone through the documentary evidence on record.
5.           In the instant case, the complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from OP No.1 on 21.11.2016 for Rs.40,900/- vide Ann.C-1 having one year warranty.  A copy of  the job sheet dated 25.09.2017 issued by OP No.2 (authorized service centre) vide which the complainant handed over the mobile phone in question with the complaints of restart, hanging, overheating, battery swelling has also been placed on record.  The complainant has also placed on record the copy of the legal notice served upon the OP and the e-mail dated 26.09.2017 vide which OPs  No.2 to 4 offered five months extended warranty for the above said handset post proper inspection.
6.           The stand taken by OP No.2 to 4 is that vide e-mail dated 26.09.2017, the complainant was offered five months extended warranty for the mobile phone post proper inspection.  However, he deliberately refused to accept the same. It has been argued that the same was offered as a special case though the warranty was only for one year. 
7.           From the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, it is evident that OPs No.2 to 4 have shown their willingness in the e-mail dated 26.09.2017 as well as in the written reply to repair the mobile phone in question and even offered to give extended warranty to the complainant but it is he himself who is not interested to get repaired the mobile phone in question and is pressing hard for its replacement.
8.           In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. B.G. Thakur Desai & Anr. reported in I(1993) CPJ 72 NC it was held by  Hon’ble National Commission as under :

"....If a consumer purchases some machinery and some part of it is found having manufacturing defect and that part can be replaced then it will be very prejudicial to the interest of the manufacturer if he is asked to replace the whole machinery without sufficient cause......"

9.           In Tata Engineering&Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. M. Moosa, 1994 (2) CTJ 1046 (NC), the National Commission made the following observations :

".....If the defects occurring in any goods purchased. Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act authorises the Forum to have the defects removed, even if there are numerous defects which can be rectified. It will be very hard on the manufacturer to replace the vehicle or refund its price merely because some defect (not manufacturing defect) appears which can be rectified or defective part can be replaced."

10.      In view of the ratio of law settled in the aforesaid cases, it would not be proper to direct OPs No.2 to 4 to replace the mobile phone with a new one especially when they were ready to repair the mobile phone and to give extended warranty. However, the complainant has to suffer mental agony and physical harassment due to the defects in the mobile phone because he could not use the same after spending a hefty amount of Rs.40,900/- and, therefore, he is entitled to Rs.5,500/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.3,500/- litigation expenses.
11.           In view of the above findings, this complaint is disposed of with a direction to OPs No.2 to 4 to make the mobile phone in working order by replacing its defective parts, if any, free of costs and to give fresh warranty of 6 months to the complainant from the date of its delivery.  They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.3,500/- as costs of litigation. The complainant shall hand over the mobile phone in question to the authorized service center for its repairs against proper receipt/job sheet.
12.           This order be complied with by OPs No.2 to 4  jointly and severally within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund Rs.40,900/- being the price of the mobile phone and Rs.5,500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment to the complainant along with penal interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization besides costs of litigation.
13.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

09/04/2018 

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER