BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.43 of 2015
Date of Institution: 25.2.2015
Date of Decision: 19.12.2016
Mukesh Taneja s/o Sh. Ram Chander Taneja, aged about 28 years, resident of Aggarsain Colony, Gali No.11/4, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its proprietor/ partner.
2. A.N. Telecom, #47, Dwarka Puri, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Incharge/ Manager.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi- 110044, through its Managing Director.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sumit Soni, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. N.K. Daroliya, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that on 24.6.2014, he had purchased one Samsung Galaxy S5 Gold mobile handset from opposite party no.1 for an amount of Rs.39,900/- vide cash memo No.6848 dated 24.6.2014 with warranty of one year. The op no.1 had also assured that mobile is water proof. After 15 days of purchase of mobile, the complainant noticed defects of hanging, over heating, touch malfunctioning etc. in the mobile. The complainant immediately approached op no.1 who referred him to op no.2. On 18.7.2014, complainant visited to op no.2 where op no.2 issued job sheet dated 18.7.2014 and assured the complainant to get the problems resolved within a day or two and after two/three days, op no.2 informed him that they had tried their best to repair the mobile and as defect is major one they had to send the handset to Gurgaon and asked for one week more for getting the same repaired. The complainant had to take rounds to op no.2 but all in vain. Then to the surprise of complainant, op no.2 contacted the complainant telephonically and asked to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for repair of the mobile handset and on his refusal as mobile was under warranty, the op no.2 clearly stated that mobile will be repaired only after deposit of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant served a legal notice dated 8.8.2014 to ops and op no.3 in response to the legal notice sent a letter dated 29.8.2014 to the complainant wherein the op no.3 had admitted his claim, did not demand any amount for repair and requested him to visit the nearest service centre i.e. op no.2 and assured for speedy resolution of the problems. Accordingly, he approached op no.2 but handset was returned to him after about 1 ½ month saying that defects have been fully resolved. But even after 3/4 days, the same problems/ defects arose and complainant approached the op no.2 on 3.9.2014 vide job sheet No.4180643887. Thereafter, complainant had to take rounds to op no.2 for repair but neither the op no.2 repaired the handset nor returned the same to him. Even op no.2 had also willfully and malafidely cancelled the job sheet and issued a forged job sheet dated 9.9.2014. After that op no.2 returned the handset back on 16.10.2014 but it was having same problems. The complainant again visited op no.2 on 27.10.2014 and when he received his handset back on 3.12.2014, he was shocked to see that op no.2 had deleted/formatted all the important data of the complainant. The op no.2 had flatly refused to restore the date or to get the handset repaired/replaced. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and replied that any mobile set could occur fault/defect due to non-use according to instructions and due to other various causes. It is denied that display problem occurred in set due to any manufacturing or any default on the part of answering op and op no.1 is not liable to replace or repair the mobile.
3. Ops No.2 & 3 have replied that without any technical/ expert report, it cannot be ascertained that the unit is having manufacturing defect. The complainant had visited the service centre of company on 18.7.2014 and engineer of company checked the unit and found that there was no major problem in handset and no hardware was replaced and only software was updated because updating of mobile leads to better performance of smart phones. Again on 12.9.2014, the complainant visited the service centre and the engineer checked the unit and found that mobile was damaged due to mishandling and told the complainant that mobile is out of warranty due to condition of warranty that is mishandling and the service of mobile shall be on paid basis. But the complainant became adamant to not to pay the repair amount. Again after approximate more than one year of purchase of mobile, the complainant approached the service centre on 18.8.2015 and on 22.8.2015 respectively about his complaint and both the time no problem was found in the mobile.
4. By way of evidence, complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of job sheet dated 18.7.2014 Ex.C3, copy of email Ex.C4, copy of job sheet dated 27.10.2014 Ex.C5, copy of job sheet dated 9.9.2014 Ex.C6, copy of job sheet dated 3.9.2014 Ex.C7, copy of letter dated 29.8.2014 Ex.C8, copy of job sheet dated 18.8.2015 Ex.C9, extension certificate dated 4.12.2014 Ex.C10, copy of job sheet dated 22.6.2015 Ex.C11, detail information Ex.C12, e-mail Ex.C13 and e-mail Ex.C14. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1, copy of job sheet dated 18.8.2015 Ex.R2, QC check sheet Ex.R3, copy of warranty card Ex.R4, affidavit of op no.1 Ex.R5.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 on 24.6.2014 for a sum of Rs.39,900/- as is evident from copy of bill No.6848 dated 24.6.2014 Ex.C2. From the copy of job sheet dated 18.7.2014 Ex.C3, it is evident that just after 24/25 days of its purchase, the complainant made complaint of hanging, over heating, touch not working and no one application open. Then in the job sheet dated 3.9.2014 Ex.C7 he made complaint of touch problem in the mobile in question. In the job sheet dated 9.9.2014 Ex.C6, there is again mention of touch problem in the mobile handset. From the above said job sheets, it is clear that mobile developed inherent defects within short period of its purchase and complainant made many rounds to the opposite parties for repair of the mobile in question but the defects persisted in the mobile in question. The op no.3 also extended the warranty of the mobile in question for a period of 14 months from 24.6.2014 i.e. date of purchase as is evident from letter dated 4.12.2014 Ex.C10 which strengthens the case of the complainant that mobile in question was having defects. Then within the warranty period of 14 months, the complainant made complaint of over heat and applications auto close when using vide job sheet dated 18.8.2015 Ex.C9. From the various job sheets placed on file by the complainant, it is established that complainant continued visited ops for redressal of his grievance but to no effect. There is nothing on file to prove the version of ops No.2 & 3 that mobile was mishandled.
7. Keeping in view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to repair the mobile in question and to make it defect free without charging any amount from complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This order should be complied by all the opposite parties jointly and severally. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:19.12.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
