Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 678.
Instituted on : 01.12.2017.
Decided on : 23.04.2019.
Sandeep Kataria son of Sh. Ravinder, age 32 years, resident of House No. 1012/19, Arya Nagar, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., SCO 35, Sector-31, Gurgaon, through its M.D.
2. Vaishno Communication, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Civil Road, Rohtak, through its Proprietor.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party No. 2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that on 26.11.2016, the complainant had purchased a Samsung J7 mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 352335089650067 from the opposite party No. 2 vide bill no.10654 dated 26.11.2016 for Rs.19,000/- which was manufactured by opposite party No. 1. It is alleged that soon after purchase of the mobile set, it started giving problems like “auto off and slow process”. The complainant contacted the service center i.e. opposite party No.2 on 04.11.2017 and the officials of the OP No.2 changed the motherboard of mobile set, but after receiving the same, it was found that the defect was not removed and there was problems of “hanging, finger print sensor and auto off”. That on 10.11.2017, the complainant again contacted the service centre and after repair, set was given back but this time also, problem was not removed properly. That the mobile set in question was having manufacturing defect and the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the value of mobile i.e. Rs.19,000/- alongwith interest and Rs.25,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed his written reply. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply submitted that the complainant with regards to his complaint regarding the mobile, approached to the opposite party on dated 04.11.2017 i.e. just before few days from the expiry of warranty period of one year of the alleged mobile. It is further submitted that on 04.11.2017, the complainant visited to service center and reported the problem in mobile in question, then the engineer of the service center duly checked the unit and resolved the issue by replacement of PCB of the mobile in question. The unit become OK and the complainant took the delivery of unit to his full satisfaction. That job sheet dated 10.11.2017 annexed by the complainant is not issued by the answering opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite party No. 1.
3. Whereas, opposite party no. 2 failed to appear before the Forum, hence, opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.01.2018 passed by this Forum.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and has closed his evidence on dated 23.01.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence on dated 01.04.2019.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant had purchased the mobile set on 26.11.2016 and as per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 04.11.2017 and job sheet Ex.C3 dated 10.11.2017, there were defects in the mobile set i.e. “H/S Auto Off, Slow process” which could not be removed by the opposite parties within warranty period. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is also on record that that the job sheet placed on record by the complainant is dated 04.11.2017 & dated 10.11.2017 which is issued after 11 months of purchase of alleged mobile. Neither any complaint before this complaint was ever made by the complainant to the opposite parties nor any copy of complaint has been placed on record by the complainant. Meaning thereby the complainant has used the mobile in question uninterruptedly for 11 months. As such complainant is entitled for the price of mobile set after deduction of depreciation on it. Hence opposite party No.1 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set in question after deduction of 50% depreciation on it.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the price of mobile set Rs.19000/- less Rs.9500/-(on account of 50% depreciation) i.e. to pay Rs.9500/-(Rupees nine thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 01.12.2017 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving of awarded amount.
8. Copy of this of and the order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
23.04.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
