Order dictated by:
Sh. Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member
- Sh. Sudhir Dogra complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant purchased one Samsung A710 Mobile handset from opposite party No.3 vide invoice No. 0260 dated 18.5.2016 for Rs. 29,900/- with one year warranty being manufactured by opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 being authorized service centre. The said mobile handset became non functional on 19.8.2016 as its touch screen “doesn’t on” and the complaint to the said effect was made to opposite party No.2, who kept the handset with it but did not return the same after removing the defect as according to them the requisite parts were not available with them. However, opposite parties told the complainant to come later. Thereafter complainant visited the opposite party No.2 many a times but till date the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect in the mobile handset . The complainant vide instant complaint has sought for the following reliefs:-
- Opposite parties be directed to set right the mobile handset of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant or in the alternative to refund Rs. 29900/- with interest from date of purchase till realization
- Opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- alongwith adequate litigation expenses.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice opposite parties No.1 & 3 appeared and filed separate written versions.
3. Opposite party No.1 in its written version has taken certain preliminary objections therein inter-alia that the complainant has purchased the mobile in question from opposite party No.3 vide bill No. 0260 dated 18.5.2016 for Rs. 29900/- with one year warranty subject to terms and conditions as mentioned in the warranty card supplied with the product. It was denied that mobile handset become non functional on 19.8.2016 and touch screen ‘doesn’t on’. Rather the mobile handset in question has been badly mishandled physically by the complainant leading to breaking of various parts of the handset. The display, rear glass and other parts of the handset were broken. Due to physically damaged condition of the handset it was not covered under warranty and repair was to be done on chargeable basis subject to availability of parts as per warranty terms and conditions. Opposite party No.2 with whom the handset is alleged to be insured forwarded the repair request to the authorized service centre of answering opposite party. As the handset in question was badly broken, it was not possible to repair the handset as it was in total damage condition. The handset has been damaged/broken due to negligence of the complainant as such the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the handset or refund of price .
4. Opposite party No.3 in its written version has submitted that replying opposite party is only an authorized dealer of the Samsung Mobile Phones and the handset in question has been sold to the complainant after his full satisfaction in respect of all its functions, working and there was no discrepancy in the handset in question at the time of its sale . In case after sale any problem has occurred in the handset due to any reason whatsoever and in case the handset is in warranty, it is the responsibility and liability of the manufacturer or the service provider to remove the same to the satisfaction of the customer . Since the replying opposite party is neither manufacturer nor service provider of the handset, as such no deficiency of service can be attributed to the replying opposite party.
5. Opposite party No.2 did not opt to put appearance despite service, as such it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
6. In his bid to prove the case Sh. Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of invoice Ex.C-2, copy of job sheet Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
7. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Ms.Preeti Mahajan,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
8. On the other hand Sh.Munish Menon,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Vikas Narang Ex.OP3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3.
9. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
10. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased one Samsung A710 Mobile handset from opposite party No.3 vide invoice No.0260 dated 18.5.2016 for Rs. 29,900/- having one year warranty, copy of invoice accounts for Ex.C-2 on record. It was the case of the complainant that the said mobile became non functional as its touch screen does not work on 19.8.2016 and the complainant lodged complaint to the said effect to opposite party No.2 . In this regard complainant filed copy of job sheet dated 19.8.2016 Ex.C-3. But, however, the opposite parties failed to remove the defect occurred in the mobile handset during warranty period and the mobile handset still is in possession of opposite parties.
11. On the other hand opposite party No.1 has taken a plea that the mobile handset has been badly mishandled physically by the complainant leading to breaking of various parts of the handset . It was admitted that display, rear glass and other parts of the handset were broken. It was submitted that due to physically damaged condition of the handset, it was not covered under warranty and repair was to be done on chargeable basis subject to availability of parts.
12. We have gone through the thoughtful consideration of the rival contentions. It is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile handset in dispute vide invoice No. 0260 dated 18.5.2016 for Rs. 29900/-, copy whereof is Ex.C-2 on record. It is the case of the complainant that on 19.8.2016 the mobile handset became non function as its touch screen doesn’t on . But, however, mobile handset could not be repaired by opposite parties despite visiting for a number of times . The only plea of the opposite parties is that the handset in question has been mishandled physically by the complainant leading to breaking of various parts of the handset . The display, rear glass and other parts of the handset were broken and the handset in question was not covered under warranty and repair was to be done on chargeable basis. So it was clear that the mobile handset which was in the custody of the opposite parties was not repairable as it requires replacement of some parts. As the mobile handset is within the warranty period and the opposite parties have not produced any evidence to prove that such parts are not covered under the warranty period and the opposite parties cannot charge any amount for such parts. But, however, opposite parties have charged Rs. 1495/- from the complainant vide job sheet Ex.C-3. But even thereafter the opposite parties have not repaired the mobile handset. It further fortifies the case of the complainant that mobile handset belonging to the complainant was beyond the scope of repairs and it was suffering from manufacturing defects. But as the mobile handset has been used by the complainant for some period as such complainant is not entitled to full value of the mobile handset. As such the complainant is entitled to 75% of the price value of the mobile handset.
13. Consequently, the opposite parties are directed to refund the 75% of the price value of the mobile handset in dispute i.e. 75% of Rs. 29,900/-. As the opposite parties have charged Rs. 1495/- from the complainant for repair of the mobile handset even during the warranty period but even then did not repair the mobile handset , as such complainant is also entitled to refund of Rs. 1405/- from the opposite parties. The complainant is also entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 3000/- on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties besides that the litigation expenses are assessed at Rs. 2000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the orders 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: 20.3.2017
