Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member.
Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Deepak Bawa under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased Mobile Set Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge G935, Gold Platinum from the Opposite Party No.2 vide Bill/Invoice no. 50443 dated 8.5.2016 for Rs.57000/-. The aforesaid Mobile Set started creating problems including ‘Finger Sensor not working property’ and ‘while using became over heat’. The complainant made complaint on 10.9.2016 vide complaint No. 4221326987 to Opposite Party No.3 and kept the Mobile Set in dispute for repair by giving time for few days. As per the company policy, the Opposite Party No.3 also did not provide any alternative set for the use of the complainant. Complainant has been approaching the Opposite Party No.3, but Opposite Party No.3 always replied that the spare parts are not available with them. Then the complainant demanded the amount refunded and Opposite Party No.3 demanded all the accessories including box, booklet, charger, injection pin which was deposited by the complainant with Opposite Party No.3 on 22.9.2016 duly endorsed by the representative of Opposite Party No.3 on the job card. Even the Opposite Party also received the cancelled cheque no.017871 of Axis Bank Limited alongwith copy of the bill which was received by Sh. Rajiv Sharma, representative of the Opposite Party at the address of Opposite Party No.3. The complainant also approached the Opposite Parties on customer care, but no proper response was given, nor the amount has been refunded to the complainant. The complainant also issued legal notice dated 28.9.2016 to Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties failed to comply with the said legal notice. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
- Opposite Parties be directed to refund Rs.57,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
- Opposite Parties be also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.25000/- on account of mental tension, harassment, agony suffered by him.
- Opposite Parties be directed to pay costs of litigation amounting to Rs.5000/-.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the Forum as he has concealed the true and material facts. The Mobile Set in dispute has been physically mishandled by the complainant as the Display of the Mobile Set in dispute was found to be damaged internally when Mobile Set in dispute was submitted before Opposite Party No.3 on 10.9.2016 as the display was showing shaded lines as some object might have fallen on the display screen of the Mobile Set in dispute or Mobile Set in dispute might have fallen leading to damage. The job sheet was duly issued by Opposite Party No.3 which has already been placed on record by the complainant. The display screen of the Mobile Set in dispute required replacement and the same was not readily available with Opposite Party No.3. Thus, Opposite Party No.3 placed an order for the display screen (Octa) with answering respondent, but the complainant was adamant that his Mobile Set in dispute be replaced or amount be refunded and he refused to get his Mobile Set in dispute repaired from Opposite Party No.3. Hence, the Mobile Set in dispute could not be repaired and the complainant intentionally did not take back his Mobile Set in dispute from Opposite Party No.3. The complainant has now filed the present complaint alleging totally false facts and concealed the true facts regarding the physical damaged condition of his Mobile Set in dispute, caused due to his own negligence. Thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for concealment of the true facts. The Mobile Set in dispute has been alleged to be purchased on 8.5.2016 and for the first time, the Mobile Set in dispute was submitted with Opposite Party No.3 on 10.9.2016 after 4 months of purchase. On inspection of Mobile Set in dispute by Opposite Party No.3, the Mobile Set in dispute was found to be physically mishandled as the display was damaged internally which shows that there is no inherent defect in the Mobile Set in dispute and rather it has been mishandled by the complainant leading to damaging of display of the Mobile Set in dispute. But the complainant for the best reason know to him refused to get his Mobile Set in dispute repaired from Opposite Party No.3 and was adamant for replacement of Mobile Set in dispute or for refund of price without any basis. On merits, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite due service, hence Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order of this Forum.
4. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager Ex.OP1,3/1, copy of warranty card Ex.OP1,3/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3.
6. We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and argued that he had purchased one Mobile Set Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge G935, Gold Platinum from the Opposite Party No.2 vide Bill/Invoice no. 50443 dated 8.5.2016 for Rs.57000/-, copy of bill accounts for Ex.C8. The aforesaid Mobile Set started creating problems including ‘Finger Sensor not working property’ and ‘while using became over heat’. The complainant made complaint on 10.9.2016 vide complaint No. 4221326987 to Opposite Party No.3 and kept the Mobile Set in dispute for repair by giving time for few days. As per the company policy, the Opposite Party No.3 also did not provide any alternative set for the use of the complainant. Complainant has been approaching the Opposite Party No.3, but Opposite Party No.3 always replied that the spare parts are not available with them. Then the complainant demanded the amount refunded and Opposite Party No.3 demanded all the accessories including box, booklet, charger, injection pin which was deposited by the complainant with Opposite Party No.3 on 22.9.2016 duly endorsed by the representative of Opposite Party No.3 on the job card. Even the Opposite Party also received the cancelled cheque no.017871 of Axis Bank Limited alongwith copy of the bill which was received by Sh. Rajiv Sharma, representative of the Opposite Party at the address of Opposite Party No.3. The complainant also approached the Opposite Parties on customer care, but no proper response was given, nor the amount has been refunded to the complainant. The aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties of not listening the genuine and legitimate request of the complainant is quite illegal, unwarranted and unsustainable.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 has specifically repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant on the ground that the Mobile Set in dispute has been physically mishandled by the complainant as the Display of the Mobile Set in dispute was found to be damaged internally when Mobile Set in dispute was submitted before Opposite Party No.3 on 10.9.2016 as the display was showing shaded lines as some object might have fallen on the display screen of the Mobile Set in dispute or Mobile Set in dispute might have fallen leading to damage. The job sheet was duly issued by Opposite Party No.3 which has already been placed on record by the complainant. The display screen of the Mobile Set in dispute required replacement and the same was not readily available with Opposite Party No.3. Thus, Opposite Party No.3 placed an order for the display screen (Octa) with answering respondent, but the complainant was adamant that his Mobile Set in dispute be replaced or amount be refunded and he refused to get his Mobile Set in dispute repaired from Opposite Party No.3. Hence, the Mobile Set in dispute could not be repaired and the complainant intentionally did not take back his Mobile Set in dispute from Opposite Party No.3. The complainant has now filed the present complaint alleging totally false facts and concealed the true facts regarding the physical damaged condition of his Mobile Set in dispute, caused due to his own negligence. Thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for concealment of the true facts. The Mobile Set in dispute has been alleged to be purchased on 8.5.2016 and for the first time, the Mobile Set in dispute was submitted with Opposite Party No.3 on 10.9.2016 after 4 months of purchase. On inspection of Mobile Set in dispute by Opposite Party No.3, the Mobile Set in dispute was found to be physically mishandled as the display was damaged internally which shows that there is no inherent defect in the Mobile Set in dispute and rather it has been mishandled by the complainant leading to damaging of display of the Mobile Set in dispute. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the answering Opposite Parties.
9. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased one Mobile Set Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge G935, Gold Platinum from the Opposite Party No.2 vide Bill/Invoice no. 50443 dated 8.5.2016 for Rs.57000/-, copy of bill accounts for Ex.C8. It was not the denial of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 that the Mobile Set in question having one year warranty from the date of its purchase i.e. uptil 8.5.2017, copy of warranty card itself produced by Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 is Ex.OP1,3/2. But the only contention of the ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 is that the Mobile Set in dispute has been physically mishandled by the complainant as the Display of the Mobile Set in dispute was found to be damaged internally when Mobile Set in dispute was submitted before Opposite Party No.3 on 10.9.2016 as the display was showing shaded lines as some object might have fallen on the display screen of the Mobile Set in dispute or Mobile Set in dispute might have fallen leading to damage. The job sheet was duly issued by Opposite Party No.3 which has already been placed on record by the complainant. The display screen of the Mobile Set in dispute required replacement and the same was not readily available with Opposite Party No.3. Thus, Opposite Party No.3 placed an order for the display screen (Octa) with answering respondent, but the complainant was adamant that his Mobile Set in dispute be replaced or amount be refunded and he refused to get his Mobile Set in dispute repaired from Opposite Party No.3. Hence, the Mobile Set in dispute could not be repaired and the complainant intentionally did not take back his Mobile Set in dispute from Opposite Party No.3.
10. Undisputedly, the Mobile Set in dispute became defective within warranty period as the Mobile Set in dispute was purchased by the complainant from the Opposite Party No.2 vide Bill/Invoice no. 50443 dated 8.5.2016 for Rs.57000/-, copy of bill accounts for Ex.C8 and for the first time, the Mobile Set in dispute was submitted with Opposite Party No.3 on 10.9.2016 after 4 months of purchase for its repair. The aforesaid Mobile Set started creating problems including ‘Finger Sensor not working property’ and ‘while using became over heat’. The complainant made complaint on 10.9.2016 vide complaint No. 4221326987 to Opposite Party No.3 and kept the Mobile Set in dispute for repair by giving time for few days, but however, despite making the repair in the mobile set in question, Opposite Party No.3-authorised service centre did not bother either the repair the Mobile Set in dispute or to refund the price value of the Mobile Set in dispute, because the Mobile Set in dispute was at that time was within warranty period. Opposite Party No.3 in its version has submitted that the display screen of the Mobile Set in dispute required replacement and the same was not readily available with Opposite Party No.3. Thus, Opposite Party No.3 placed an order for the display screen (Octa) with answering respondent. So, in such a situation, we direct Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 to refund the price value of the Mobile Set in dispute of Rs.57,000/- to the complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 shall be liable to make the awarded amount alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order. Complaint against Opposite Party No.2 stands dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 13.02.2017.
