Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 113.
Instituted on : 14.03.2018.
Decided on : 19.03.2019.
Ajmer Singh Hooda, Advocate, Chamber No. 268, District Courts, Rohtak, Resident of Village Rurkee, Tehsil & District Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Manager/Authorized Person, Sane Retail Private Limited, 161, GF, Sector-4, MDC Panchkula, Haryana-124113.
- Manager/Authorized Person, Dhingra Services, First Floor, Beside Vijya Bank, Narayana Complex, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak-124001.
- Manager/Authorized Person, Rising Stars Mobile India Private Limited, 380 Belerica road, Sri City, Siddam Agra Haram Village, Varadaiahtalem Mandal, Chittoor, District Andhra Pradesh-517541.
……….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: Sh. Sandeep Hooda, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ankur Dua, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party No. 2 already exparte.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No. 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone Redmi Note-4-IN-4+64G-Golden having IMEI No.865758030916446 from the respondent No. 1 vide invoice no.FOYQG00818-0669405, dated 16.05.2017 for Rs.12,999/- and respondent No. 1 assured the complainant that if the said mobile phone become defective within warranty/guarantee period, then it would be replaced with the new one of same make and model. That respondent No. 1 is the dealer of said mobile phone, respondent No. 2 is authorized service centre and respondent No. 3 is its manufacturer. It is alleged that the said mobile set was giving lots of problems like touch screen problem, display, speakers, charging and over heating etc. It is alleged that the said phone stopped functioning properly within warranty/guarantee period and the complainant has visited the service centre i.e. opposite party No. 2 on 10.03.2018, but they returned the same to the complainant after one hour and they issued a job sheet in this regard and said that the complainant has to pay Rs.1100/- for its repair. Officials of opposite party No. 2 informed the complainant that some of the defects cannot be repaired, as it is a manufacturing defect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile phone i.e. Rs.12,999/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and also to pay Rs.11,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that role of the opposite party No. 1 is only limited to reselling the products of various manufacturers and its role comes to the end as soon as the product ordered is delivered at the address provided by the customer. It is further submitted that only the manufacturer can be held responsible for any manufacturing defects as alleged by the complainant. 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. Opposite party No. 3 in its reply has submitted that the complainant was duly informed that the mobile has suffered liquid damage and was also requested by authorized service canter of the respondent No. 3 to pay repair costs since customer induced damages such as liquid damage in the present case are not covered under standard warranty terms and conditions applicable to the product. The complainant refused to pay the repair costs and the mobile in question was duly returned to the complainant without any repair. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 3. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the opposite party No. 3.
3. Whereas, opposite party No. 2 failed to appear before the Forum despite due service, hence, opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.04.2018 of this Forum.
4. Complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on dated 13.02.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 made a statement that the reply already filed be read in evidence and has closed his evidence on dated 06.03.2019. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on dated 06.03.2019.
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 both the parties, it is observed that complainant had purchased the mobile on 16.05.2017 and defects such as touch screen problem, display problem, speakers problem and hanging & heating problems etc. appeared in mobile set within warranty/guarantee period but the same is not repaired by the opposite parties on the ground that the mobile had suffered liquid damage i.e. damage due to exposure to liquid which is not covered under standard warranty terms & conditions applicable to the product. But the respondents have not placed on record any technical report or or affidavit of the technical person to prove that there was liquid damage in the mobile in question. As such the objection taken by the opposite party No.3 regarding liquid damage in the mobile set is turned down and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 20% depreciation on it.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed with direction to the opposite party No. 3 to refund the amount of mobile set after deduction of 20% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.10400/-(Rupees ten thousand four hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.14.03.2018 till its realization and also to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to handover the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving the payment from the opposite party if the same is in the possession of complainant.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.03.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
