BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.173/16.
Date of instt.: 15.06.2016.
Date of Decision: 01.05.2017.
Mahender Singh S/o Sh. Punnu Ram, R/o H.No.140, Gali No.8, Amargarh Gamri, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s. Shree Ram Mobile Store, Main Bazaar, Kaithal.
- Bharti Communication, SHO No.117, Lala Lajpat Rai Shopping Complex near Navgarh Chowk, Kaithal through its proprietor.
- M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager/Managing Director, A25, Ground floor, front Tower Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate New Delhi-110044.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Pradeep Harti, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.2 & 3.
Op No.1 exparte.
ORDER
(HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a mobile set make Samsung, Model 360 (Metro) bearing IMEI No.357686066570628 for sum of Rs.3400/- from Op No.1 vide bill No.3733 dt. 20.11.2015. It is alleged that in the month of May, 2016 the said mobile set became defective with the problems of incoming and outgoing sound started increase and decrease automatically and even its volume automatically started to go down upto zero level. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.1 several times for repair of said mobile set but the Op No.1 did not repair the said mobile set. It is further alleged that the complainant deposited the said mobile set with the Op No.2 on 27.05.2016 but the Op No.2 did not remove the defects from the mobile set. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 & 3 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 28.07.2016. Ops No.2 & 3 filed their replies separately. Op No.2 filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant in regards to his complaint approached the answering Op on 13.04.2016 with some problem in the unit and the unit was duly repaired by the answering Op and the same was delivered to the complainant after repair. Thereafter, the complainant never approached the answering Op with any problem in the unit and filed the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.3 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant with regard to his complaint approached the service-centre of the company vide complaint No.4213542122 on 04.05.2016 and reported some incoming outgoing voice issue in the unit and the engineer of the company checked the unit and no issue was found and only to refresh the unit, the software of the unit got updated and the complainant took the delivery of the unit in O.K. condition; after that the complainant again approached the answering Op on 27.05.2016 vide call No.4214878726 and the engineer of service-centre thoroughly checked the unit and resolved the issue by replacement of PBA of the unit and the complainant took the delivery of the unit to his full satisfaction and after that no problem was reported by the complainant with regard to his unit. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Mark-C1 and closed evidence on 02.11.2016. On the other hand, the Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed evidence on 02.01.2017. Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.RW3/A and Annexure-R1 & Annexure R-2 and closed evidence on 07.04.2017.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question on 20.11.2015 and in the month of May, 2016, the said mobile set became defective with the problems of incoming and outgoing sound started increase and decrease automatically and even its volume automatically started to go down upto zero level. He further argued that the complainant approached the service-centre of Ops on 04.05.2016 regarding the defective mobile set but they did not repair the said mobile set completely and the complainant again deposited the said mobile set with the Op No.2 on 27.05.2016 but the Op No.2 did not remove the defects from the mobile set. He further argued that the complainant approached the Ops several times for replacement of said mobile set or to refund the cost of mobile set but they did not redress the grievances of complainant. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 argued that the complainant with regard to his complaint approached the service-centre of the company vide complaint No.4213542122 on 04.05.2016 and reported some incoming outgoing voice issue in the unit and the engineer of the company checked the unit and no issue was found and only to refresh the unit, the software of the unit got updated and the complainant took the delivery of the unit in O.K. condition. He further argued that the complainant again approached the service-centre of Ops on 27.05.2016 vide call No.4214878726 and the engineer of service-centre thoroughly checked the unit and resolved the issue by replacement of PBA of the unit and the complainant took the delivery of the unit to his full satisfaction and after that no problem was reported by the complainant with regard to his unit.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant on 20.11.2015 and the same became defective within the warranty period, as is clear from the job-sheet dt. 27.05.2016, Mark-C1. In the said job-sheet, Mark-C1, in the column of defect description, the problems are shown that “mostly time volume in incoming & outgoing, auto off”. The complainant has filed the present complaint in this Forum on 15.06.2016 i.e. within the warranty period. Besides the above-said job-sheet, the complainant has supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and bill dt. 20.11.2015, Ex.C1. Moreover, the Op No.3 has admitted in the reply that the complainant deposited the mobile set with the service-centre of Ops on 04.05.2016 and 27.05.2016 which means that the mobile set became defective after about five months of its purchase. The grievance of the complainant is that despite repair of mobile set by the Ops several times, the mobile set was not working properly. So, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the mobile set of the complainant became defective within the warranty period and the Ops have not repaired the same to the satisfaction of the complainant, hence, the Ops are deficient in providing services to the complainant.
8. During the arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant has purchased a new mobile set and the mobile set, if replaced by the Ops is of no use for the complainant, so, in the interest of justice, the cost of mobile set may please be ordered to got returned from the Ops. We found force in this contention of the complainant because the defects arose in the mobile set time and again. In this regard, we can rely upon the authority decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana bearing first appeal No.460 of 2014 decided on 28.05.2014 titled as Deepjot Singh Vs. The Mobile Store. So, keeping in view the above citation, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be met if the cost of mobile set be ordered to be refunded after making 30% depreciation of the same.
9. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.2380/- the cost of the mobile set after deducting 30% depreciation i.e. (Rs.3400/- minus Rs.1020/-=Rs.2380/-). The Ops are also burdened to pay Rs.1100/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its payment. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.01.05.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
