Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 537.
Instituted on : 13.09.2017.
Decided on : 01.10.2018.
Hitesh Kumar s/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar R/o 518/7 Pithwada Mohalla, Peer wali Gali, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Taneja Mobile Gallery, Gohana Stand, Rohtak.
- B2X Service Solution Pvt. Ltd., Jain Mansion, HUDA Complex, Rohtak.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A 25, First Floor, Front Tower Mohan Co-op. Industrial Estate New Delhi-110044.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Sahil Rohilla, A.R.for complainant.
Sh.Kamal Gagneja, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone on dated 07.08.2017 from the opposite party No.1. That after using the same for 20-25 days, the complainant noticed a black colour spot at the corner of the screen so he contacted the opposite party No.2 but they refused to remove the defect on the plea that the mobile cannot be repaired within warranty and he had to pay the repairing charges. That the mobile in question was within warranty period and there was defect in the mobile set was at the time of purchase itself which could not be noticed by the complainant. That there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed either to replace the mobile set or to refund the price of same alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 in its reply has submitted that the OP deals in sales of mobile handsets & at the time of repairing, the retailer has no role/deficiency on his part. Hence it is prayed that the name of Taneja mobile gallery may be removed from the array of respondents. OP No.2 & 3 in their reply has submitted that the unit has got damaged due to mishandling on the part of complainant and the complainant is trying to get illegal benefits of his own wrong from answering opposite parties. That Ops are still ready to repair the unit as per company policy, so there is no deficiency on the part of answering opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for OP No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/5 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the documents reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 07.08.2017 for a sum of Rs.42900/- and only within a month complainant noticed a spot at the corner of his mobile so he contacted the OPs and as per job sheet Ex.C1, it is mentioned that “Display left side above corner dot show’. But as per job sheet Ex.C3, the OPs has shown the mobile out of warranty being the defect appeared due to impact damage, external misuse/pressure or liquid logged. But in the absence of any technical report, OPs have failed to prove such mishandling of product. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they are liable to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest and compensation.
6. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of Rs.42900/-(Rupees forty two thousand nine hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.09.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile in question to the OPs/service centre at the time of payment by the OP No.3.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.10.2018.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.