DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.737 of 2016
Date of institution: 28.10.2016
Date of decision : 12.04.2018
Nikhil Garg son of Girdhari Lal Garg, permanent resident of House No.997, Trunkan Wali Gali, Main Bazar, Moga at present residing at House No.1502, Ground Floor, Phase 3B2, Mohali.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF, PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122202 through its Managing Head/Authorised representative.
2. M/s. Mobile Solutions, SCF 48, First Floor, Phase-5, Mohali, authorised Samsung Service Centre, through its Managing Head/Authorised Representative.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Tushar Arora proxy counsel for Shri Puneet Tuli, counsel for the OPs.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant, on 03.01.2016 purchased Samsung Galaxy A5 Mobile for Rs.17,900/- from OP No.2. OP No.1, the manufacturer provided warranty of one year on the said handset for period from 03.01.2016 to 02.01.2017. 5 months after purchase, the mobile started blinking and its screen started becoming black with no display. So complainant had to switch off the mobile and re-start again. It is only after re-start of the phone that it would work properly for sometimes but again would start blinking and display getting blank. This problem continued and as such complainant contacted OP No.2. The said problem occurred twice or thrice per day in October, 2016 and that is why complainant visited OP No.2 for getting the mobile repaired because the same was under warranty. OP No.2 took the mobile of the complainant and issued an acknowledgment of service. 3 days time for return back of the mobile was given by OP No.2 and thereafter on lapse of that period, OP No.2 was again contacted, but this time OP No.2 claimed that defect of LCD blinking has not been repaired. OP No.2 claimed that some more time will be taken in repair of the mobile. Complainant again contacted OP No.2 after 2-3 days, but OP No.2 again repeated as if for repair 2-3 more days are required. After lapse of that period of 2-3 days, complainant received a telephone call from official of OP No. 2 for disclosing that screen of the mobile is damaged and same is not covered under warranty, due to which complainant will have to bear the cost of new screen and labour charges in the range of Rs.7500/- to Rs.8000/-. Complainant was in his home town at Moga at the time of receipt of that information through phone from official of OP No.2. Complainant after return back to Mohali, contacted OP No.2 and same thing was repeated. Complainant disclosed OP No.2 that he will talk with OP No.1 and will register a complaint against OP No.2 and thereafter OP No.1 was contacted for that purpose. OP No.1 assured to redress the grievance of the complainant within 2-3 days after having talk with OP No.2 and thereafter same thing disclosed that due to damage of screen, the mobile is not under warranty due to which complainant will have to pay the charges. It is claimed that at the time of handing over of mobile to OP No.2 by complainant, screen of the same was not broken and that is why OP No.2 cited the defect in the job sheet as LCD blinking. It is claimed that screen of the mobile might have been broken by officials of OP No.2 while repairing the same. By pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs and by claiming that complainant suffered mental tension, agony and harassment, prayer made for directing OPs to return the mobile handset of complainant after repairing the same or in the alternative to give a new handset of same model. Compensation for mental tension and agony of Rs.30,000/- alongwith litigation expenses also claimed.
2. In joint reply filed by OPs, it is claimed that mobile set in question was physically damaged because the screen was broken and as such said damage is not covered by terms and conditions of warranty. Moreover, it is claimed that complainant has already been informed about the same and that is why he has mentioned about the same fact in his complaint. OPs never refused to repair the mobile set on payment of charges by complainant. However, complainant refused to pay the charges and that is why the mobile could not be repaired. There is no manufacturing fault in the mobile set. Onus of proving defect in the mobile set is on the complainant, but he failed to prove the same and as such deficiency in service on part of OPs alleged to be not there. Warranty does not cover physical damage and as such by denying other averments of the complaint, prayer made for dismissal of the same.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and thereafter closed evidence. OPs failed to produce any evidence and as such evidence of OPs was closed by order dated 21.08.2017.
4. Written arguments submitted by OPs but not by complainant. Oral arguments heard and record gone through.
5. From the pleadings of the parties as well as from the contents of affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and invoice Ex.C-1, it is made out that complainant purchased mobile set in question from Ajay Luthra Mobile Repair on 03.01.2016 on payment of Rs.17,900/-. Undisputedly the mobile in question has warranty of one year and the said warranty was upto 02.01.2017. However, the mobile in question started giving LCD blinking problem and that is why same was taken to OP No.2, authorised service centre of OP No.1 on 03.10.2016. That fact is proved by copy of job sheet Ex.C-2. In job sheet Ex.C-2, it is not at all mentioned that screen of the mobile in question was broken or physically damaged, when the mobile set in question deposited by complainant with OP No.2 on 03.10.2016. Had the screen of the mobile set actually been in broken condition on 03.10.2016, then certainly OP No.2 or its representative while preparing the job sheet Ex.C-2 would have made mention of the breakage of screen therein. That mention is not at all made in Ex.C-2. Complainant has not got back the mobile phone from OP No.2 after its deposit with it on 03.10.2016 through Ex.C-2 and as such certainly occasion with complainant to damage the screen of the mobile after 03.10.2016 was not there. However, this screen was not in broken condition upto 03.10.2016 and that is why mention of the same not made in Ex.C-2. If that be the position, then certainly submission advanced by complainant has force that screen of the mobile in question might have been broken by some official handling the same for repair purposes. In view of principle of resipsa loquitor, it has to be held that the screen of mobile in question virtually stood broken after 03.10.2016 and not before that. In such circumstances, complainant need not have produced any report of expert for providing the defects in the mobile in question. However, in the absence of report of expert, it has to be held that complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the mobile, more so when the mobile set in question worked properly from the date of its purchase namely 03.01.2016 to month of October, 2016, when the same was deposited with OP No.2. A mobile hand set which functions properly for 7 to 8 months definitely cannot be said to be having any manufacturing defect. Therefore, the stand put forth by complainant regarding manufacturing defect in the mobile hand set is not believable at all. However, mobile set in question stood damaged in course of handling of the same by OP No.2 or its staff and as such certainly it is responsibility of service centre as well as of the manufacturer to repair the mobile in question free of cost. As complainant was deprived of use of mobile set in question from 03.10.2016 because of retention of the same with OP No.2 and as such certainly complainant suffered mental agony and harassment and was dragged to litigation due to which he is also entitled for compensation for mental harassment and also to litigation expenses of reasonable amount which is quantified at Rs.2,500/- per head by keeping in view price of mobile in question as Rs.17,900/- alongwith sufferings of the complainant of repeatedly contacting OP No.2 on telephone or through some personal visits.
6. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that mobile phone in question will be repaired by the OPs free of cost within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2,500/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,500/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against the OPs, whose liability is held as joint and several. Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
April 12, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
