BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.149 of 2017
Date of Institution: 6.7.2017
Date of Decision: 9.2.2018
Suraj son of Sh. Ram Partap, C/o Sh. Sham, Aircon, Bhadra Bazaar, Gali Shani De Mandir Wali, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Saugat Mobiles, Saugat Complex, Mall Road Hisar Distt. Hisar, through its Prop/ partner/ Auth. Person.
2. Oppo Care Centre, Pace Tele System Private Limited, B02/ 16- Opp Jama Masjid, Sadar Bazar Sirsa, through its Prop/ partner/ Auth. Person.
3. Oppo India, Vatika Business Park, 2nd Floor, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Road, Sector 49, Gurugram, Haryana- 122001.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite parties no.2 and 3 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that complainant purchased a mobile of Oppo company from opposite party no.1 for an amount of Rs.16,000/- on 25.6.2016 on every types of assurances given by op no.1 and op no.1 had also given two years guarantee/ warrantee of the said mobile and issued an invoice No.5/16-17/2639 to the complainant. That after some time of its purchase, the mobile started to create problems i.e. charging problem, display auto flashing problem, auto off and hang problem and having manufacturing defect in the electronic system basically. The complainant immediately approached op no.1 and told about this problem. Then op no.1 asked that this is a minor problem and asked to approach to service centre, Sirsa which after repairing the same, returned the same to the complainant. But within a few days, the same problem again occurred in the mobile and complainant again visited to op no.1 and op no.2 again repaired the same through service centre but third time also the same problem again occurred. It is further averred that then complainant visited to op no.1 and asked him that this is a manufacturing problem. The complainant made five time complaints but now op no.1 is saying the complainant that the warranty/ guarantee period is only for one year which has been expired and now the repair of the said mobile, he should have to pay Rs.2800/- and in this regard the op no.1 has also issued an estimate amount of the said mobile. When the complainant asked that he had given warrantee/ guarantee and he is turning up from his assurance but the op did not hear the complainant and started to misbehave with the complainant and ousted from his shop by threatening that if the complainant will again come to his shop, then he will taught him a lesson. Since then complainant is visiting to the shop of op no.1 time and again and in this way, the ops have cheated him in day broad light as there was a manufacturing defect in the said mobile. Due to the act and conduct of the ops, the complainant is suffering a great harassment, mental tension, pain and agony for which, the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation from the ops besides replacement or refund of the price of the mobile. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that mobile set is purchased by op no.1 from its manufacturer/ distributor ops no.2 and 3 in a sealed and packed condition and then sell out the same as received from the distributor/ manufacturer on the nominal profit. In the eventuality, if the customer desires to see the outlook of the set, the dealer always provides the demo-set as well as catalogue provided by the manufacturer, hence there is no active part of op no.1 between the customer and manufacturer. The answering op has never given any guarantee/ assurance or warranty of mobile set to the complainant as giving of guarantee/ warrantee by answering op does not fall within his criteria, hence the question of giving any guarantee/ warrantee without having received from manufacturing company to the complainant does not arise at all. Further more, it is submitted that any mobile set could occur the fault/ defect or any mis happening, act of God, maintenance, installation, adjustments, testing, modification, spills of liquor or substances, curly cards that have been stretched or crimped, damage caused by ancillary equipments used with product/ mobile, hence op no.1 is not liable to replace or repair the set, if there is any fault the same could be detected and removed by authorized service centre only on behalf of manufacturer company. The complainant never approached to op no.1 and if the complainant would have approached to the answering op, then the answering op would have tried his best to redress the grievance of his valuable customer if any through proper channel. Moreover, the complainant never described the job card regarding visits of first time and second time repairing of the mobile in question. It is further submitted that complainant purchased the handset from answering op at Hisar and after purchase complainant never approached to answering op at Hisar, hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint.
3. Opposite parties no.2 and 3 did not appear despite notice and were proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant and op no.1 led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.1 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the averments made in his complaint. The complainant has also furnished copy of bill Ex.C1. copy of estimate Ex.C2 and copy of details of delivery of items Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.1 in order to prove its plea has furnished affidavit of Sh. Amit Singal, Partner Ex.R1 and also tendered written statement Ex.R2 in which it has been submitted that op no.1 is only seller at hisar and sold the mobile to the complainant. It has further been mentioned that mobile set is purchased by op no.1 from its manufacturer/ distributor in a sealed and packed condition and then is sold out as it is as received from the distributor/ manufacturer on the nominal profit. The warranty is given by the manufacturer and not by the dealer. If there is any defect, it is obligation of the service centre of the company to carry out necessary repair in the mobile. The complainant never described the job card regarding his visits and repairing of the mobile in question and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction since op no.1 is residing at Hisar where from mobile was purchased by the complainant.
7. Since it is proved fact on record that mobile was purchased by the complainant from op no.1 at Hisar, as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint against op no.1. But however, as per allegations of complainant, he approached time and again to op no.2 who is running service centre of op no.3 for repair of his mobile and to make it defect free but all the times op no.2 failed to make the mobile in question defect free. There is specific deposition of the complainant in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed that after some time of purchase of the mobile, same started to create problems i.e. charging problem, display, auto flashing problem, auto off and hang problem and having manufacturing defect in the electronic system basically. The set was repaired twice but again it was creating problems and time and again he approached service centre and service centre made demand of Rs.2800/- on account of repair charges.
8. The complainant who has appeared in person has strongly contended that mobile was purchased for two years warranty but he has lost warranty card, but however it appears from the record that he purchased mobile on 25.6.2016 and the present complaint has been filed on 6.7.2017 meaning thereby that prior to filing of present complaint, he had approached ops no.2 and 3 to get his mobile defect free but however, the ops no.2 and 3 could not make the same defect free. It is settled principle of law that it is legal obligation of the manufacturer as well as service centre of the company to carry out necessary repair in the product and to make it defect free. However, no liability of op no.1 is made out and as such complaint qua op no.1 stands dismissed.
9. In view of the above, we allow this complaint qua opposite parties no.2 and 3 and direct them to carry out necessary repair in the mobile of the complainant and to make it defect free without any cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case it is found that mobile of complainant is not repairable, the ops no.2 and 3 shall be liable to replace the mobile with a new one of same make and model or otherwise to refund the price of the mobile in question to the complainant within further period of 15 days. We also direct the ops no.2 and 3 to further pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation to the complainant. Both the ops no.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:9.2.2018. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
