BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.188 of 2016.
Date of Instt.:22.07.2016.
Date of Decision: 31.01.2017.
Rajesh son of Rukma Nand resident of VPO Jodi Tehsil Taranagar District Churu (Rajasthan) Mobile No..94612-81174.
...Complainant
Versus
1.M/s Tara Telecom, Nei Sadak, near Khemka Petrol Pump, Churu-331001 (Rajasthan) through its proprietor.
2.M/s Mobile Solution, authorized Service Counter Samsung, behind the street of Central Bank of India, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
3.Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, 2nd,3rd and 4th Manjil Tower-C,Vipul TCH & Square, Sector 43-43, DLF, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana).
..Opposite Parties.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh.Raj Kumar Panwar, Advocate for complainant.
OP No.1 exparte.
Sh.Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘OPs’).
2. In brief, the Complainant had purchased mobile Samsung Galaxy J-2 bearing IMEI No.RZ8GA0HA1QK (353508072860112) from OP No.1 for a total consideration of Rs.8530/- vide bill No.2152 dated 13.11.2015. Said mobile handset worked properly for about 8-9 months and thereafter it developed problems qua display and colour. The complainant approached OP No.2 who kept the mobile with it and issued job sheet no.4217895562 on dated 18.07.2016 and asked the complainant to visit on the next day. On 19.07.2016 the complainant visited the OP No.2 but it did not repair the mobile by saying that the damaged display is not covered under warranty but on the request of the complainant it kept the mobile and asked the complainant to visit on 20.07.2016. The complainant again visited the Op No.2 on 20.07.2016 but it demanded Rs.2500/- for repairing the handset despite the fact that it was under warranty period. The Ops have neither repaired the set nor replaced the same despite several requests made by the complainant. Hence this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency on the part of the Ops. In evidence the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure C1 and documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C3.
3. Notice was sent to OP No.1 through registered cover but none appeared on its behalf, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.08.2016.
4. OP Nos.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint of the complainant by fling joint reply wherein it has been submitted that as and when any matter qua functioning of the mobile is raised before the service centre it is corrected immediately as a matter of priority and had the complainant been approached the service centre in rightful manner then prompt service would have been provided to him. It has been further submitted that the complainant had approached service centre on 18.07.2016, after eight months of the purchase of the unit, with display problem and after checking handset the official of service centre told the complainant that damaged display is not covered under warranty and it can only be repaired on paid basis but instead of getting the same repaired, the complainant demanded replacement/free of cost repair. It has been further submitted that the above said problems develops due to mishandling of the unit and the company provides one year warranty of the unit subject to some conditions and warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions:
1.Liquid logged/water logging
2.Physically damage.
3.Serial No. missing
4.Tampering
5.Mishandling/burnt etc.
The OPs are ready to repair the unit as per its policy because the warranty means only repair and not replacement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.2 & 3 and the complainant has never been harassed. In evidence, Ops No.2 & 3 have tendered affidavit of Sh.Anindya Bose as Annexure RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 & Annexure R2 on the case file.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for OP Nos.2 & 3 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. It is not disputed that complainant had purchased a mobile handset in question from OP No.1 on 13.11.2015 for an amount of Rs.8350/- as is evident through Annexure C3. The grievance of the complainant is that neither the Ops rectified the defect in the set nor replaced the same despite the fact that it went out of order during warranty period. The complainant has specifically pleaded that the OP No.2 service centre of the OP No.3 demanded Rs.2500/- for repairing the mobile in the question despite the fact that it was their duty to repair the same free of costs. The OP Nos.2 & 3 have failed to explain as to why and on what basis they wished to charge Rs.2500/- from the complainant despite the fact that the mobile set was under warranty. The act and conduct of the Ops No.2 & 3 shows that instead of redressing the grouse of the complainant they are trying to avoid the matter on one pretext or the other. It is worthwhile to mention here that The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to provide protection to consumers from getting cheated or harassed by suppliers and it is the duty of the Forum to provide a simpler and quicker access to redressal of consumer grievances. This forum feel concerned that these days in fast life style of society, cellular set has become part and partial of every person and due to huge demand of mobiles the companies are attracting the customers by adopting different modes of advertisements but at the same time after selling the mobile set oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of mobile set. From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clearly established that the Ops. No.2 & 3 are deficient in providing service and have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant as per his satisfaction. Since there is no specific allegations against the OP No.1 and even it has no role to play in the dispute, therefore, complaint against OP No.1 stands rejected. There is enough on the record that the set in question went out of order within warranty period and the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.2 & 3 as they failed to remove the defect in the mobile during the warranty period. The complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 13.11.2015 and as per his version the mobile ran properly for 8/9 months, therefore, the ends of justice would be met if the Ops No.2 & 3 are ordered to return the cost of the mobile with deduction of 25 % being depreciation value of the mobile set. On this point reliance can be taken place from case law decided by Hon’ble SCDRC, Panchkula on dated 28.05.2014 in F.A.No.460 of 2014 in case titled as Deepjot Singh Thukral Vs. The Mobile Store. Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP Nos.2 & 3 to refund the cost of the mobile with deduction of 25 % being depreciation value of the mobile set, subject to depositing the mobile hand set alongwith its accessory with the OPs No.2 & 3 by the complainant. The OPs No.2 & are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment including litigation expenses. The opposite party no.1 i.e. dealer is exonerated from any liability. Order of this Forum be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the awarded amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum:
Dt.31.01.2017. (Raghbir Singh)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
