Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 283.
Instituted on : 08.05.2017.
Decided on : 22.01.2019.
Bhanu, aged about 25 years, son of Sh. Jogender Singh, Resident of H.No. 733/21, Kailash Colony, Rohtak, Mobile No. 9416125012.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Samsung Mobile Company, SCO-35, HUDA Main Market, Near Reliance Fresh, Super Market, Gurgaon.
2. Proprietor Dashmesh Khalsa Mobile Shop Near Ashoka Plaza, Opposite Myna Tourist Complex, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
3. Manager, B2X Service Solution India Pvt. Ltd., Jain Mansion HUDA Complex, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Devender Hooda, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 & 3 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that on 27.02.2017 complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile phone, model No. 56 Edge/64 bearing IMEI No.359670066530681, RZ-8H61NBOCY from the OP No. 2 for Rs.37,500/- which was product of OP No. 1 and OP No. 3 is its service center. It is alleged that after 36 days of purchasing the said mobile phone, the mobile in question has got problem in display. The complainant contacted OP No. 3 regarding this problem and OP No. 3 booked the mobile phone for repair and issued a receipt for the same on 03.04.2017 and said to complainant to collect his mobile after 2-3 days. On next day, OP demanded Rs.22,000/- as the cost of repairing amount of said phone. That complainant requested the OP to repair the mobile free of cost as the mobile was within warranty period but they refused for the same. That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective mobile to the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service on their part. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to repair or replace the mobile phone with new one and to pay Rs.10,000/- 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 in regards to his complaint has approached to the service center on 03.04.2017 vide complaint No.4233729790 and reported some problem in his unit. The engineer of the company thoroughly checked the unit and found that the unit was tempered i.e. unauthorized opened/repaired and told to complainant that the unit is barred due to tempering and the repair of the unit will be on paid basis. On 19.04.2017, complainant approached to the OP vide complaint No.3100623235 with the same problem, but the engineer again found that unit was tempered and the parts of the said phone is missing, so, service center gave the estimate of repair of said phone but the complainant refused for the same. That no question of any replacement, refund or compensation to the complainant arises. Opposite party prayed for dismissal the complaint qua the OP No. 1.
3. Whereas, OPs No. 2 and 3 have failed to appear before the Forum despite due service, so, OPs No. 2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.07.2017.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.3 and has closed his evidence on dated 27.07.2018. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and has closed his evidence on dated 04.12.2018.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant had purchased the mobile in question on dated 27.02.2017 and as per job sheet Ex.P2, the display problem appeared in the mobile set on 03.04.2017 i.e. just within 36 days of its purchase. As per copy of email Ex.P3, opposite party demanded Rs.22079/- for the repair of the same on the ground that the product was tampered with. Regarding this, it is observed that if the handset in question have some physical tampering, in that situation the same should have also been noted down in the job sheet placed on record as Ex.P2. Perusal of this job sheet shows that there is nothing mentioned in the job sheet in this regard. It is an afterthought of the opposite parties as it was told after 20 days that there was some tampering in the product. The service centre could not identify the alleged problem and the mobile set was sent to the company and the company sent the estimate of repair. In this way, it is proved that there was some manufacturing defect in the mobile in question for which opposite parties are liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant as the complainant has used the mobile set only for 36 days.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party No.1 shall pay the amount of Rs.37500/-(Rupees thirty seven thousand and five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 08.05.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
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:
22.01.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
