Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 233.
Instituted on : 18.04.2017.
Decided on : 11.10.2018.
Bhajan Lal age 39 years son of Sh. Ramphal resident of village Sihghpura Khurd Tehsil and District Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Sikka Teleconnect, Shop No.1126, near Peer Baba, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., D-1, Sector-81 Phase II Noida District Gautum Buddh Nagar, UP through its Incharge.
- B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Jain Mansion HUDA Complex, Rohtak through its Incharge.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Devender Verma, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone on dated 14.06.2016 from the opposite party No.1. That for the last about two months the complainant is facing the hanging problem in the mobile set and the set becomes heat very early and the complainant went to opposite party No.3 i.e. the service centre of OP No.2 and the job sheet was prepared on 14.04.2017 but the opposite party no.3 refused to repair the handset on the ground that there was some liquid material in the mobile set due to which warranty has been void. That complainant had to purchase a new handset immediately. That there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile set and also to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses etc.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.06.2017 of this Forum. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 in their reply has submitted that complainant approached the OP for the first time on 14.04.2017. That after inspecting the set, it was found that the unit was liquid logged due to mishandling on the part of complainant. That complainant did not approve the estimate and took the delivery of the unit without repair. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the documents reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 14.06.2016 for a sum of Rs.14400/- and on 14.04.2017 there was some defect in the mobile set and as per document Ex.C2 opposite party told the complainant that the mobile was liquid logged hence could not be repaired in warranty but the complainant was not satisfied and as such he signed the job sheet under protest. On the other hand, in the absence of any technical report, OPs have failed to prove that the mobile was liquid logged. As the defect appeared during warranty period and the same was not repaired by the OPs which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they are liable to replace the mobile set.
6. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same price and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. As per the statement dated 27.09.2018, the mobile in question is in the possession of complainant. As such, complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile in question to the OP No.2/service centre at the time of replacement by the OP No.2.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.10.2018.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
