Haryana

Panchkula

CC/145/2019

CUBIC LIFESCIENCES PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SOLAN SHIMALA TRADERS. - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL MADAAN

23 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                  

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	145 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	05.03.2019
Date of Decision	:	23.12.2019

 

Cubic Lifesciences Private Limited No.331, 1^ST & 2^nd floor, Motor Market, Manimajra, Chandigarh, now situated at plot no.203, 1^ST floor, Industrial Area, Phase -2, Panchkula through its owner Sh. Chander Bhalla.

                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Solan Shimla traders, Address: SCF-225, Motor Market, Manimajra, Chandigarh through its proprietor/ owner

2.     Pace Tel Systems  Private Limited, Address: First Floor, SCO No.19, Swastik Vihar, Mansa Devi Complex, Sector-5, Panchkula through its proprietor/ Manager

3.     Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Address: Vatika Business Park, 2^nd Floor, Sohana Road, Gurgaon-122001 (Near Block 1 Gurgaon Sector- 49) through its CEO.

                                                                             ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:          Mr.Satpal, President.

    Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

    Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

Present:        Sh. Vishal Madan, Advocate for the complainant.  

                   OP No.1 already ex parte vide order dated 22.04.2019.

Sh.Dalip Kumar, authorized representative for the OPs No.2 & 3.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant Sh. Chander Bhalla is the registered owner of the firm under the name and style Cubic Lifesciences Private Limited. He had purchased a mobile make Oppo F9 PRO for Rs.23,990,/- vide invoice no.31.08.2018 from OP No.1 for self use to earn his livelihood. After its purchase, the mobile started bending and within two months of its purchased its screen bend as curve. The complainant immediately approached to the OP No.1 to change the mobile set but the OP No.1 refused to change the mobile set and advice to approach OP No.2 being service provider. After that, he asked to change his mobile phone but he refused to change the same although offered to replace some of parts of mobile on payment basis. The complainant has left with no option and got replaced the parts of mobile hand set for Rs.14,090/- on 30.10.2018 from OP No.2. Due to the said act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered great harassment and mental agony.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice OPs No. 2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and vexatious; no cause of action and not come with clean hands. On merits, OPs No.2 & 3 stated that the complainant had purchased a Oppo mobile model no. F9 Pro having IMEI No.8667780433- 55696 from Solan Shimla Traders, Panchkula dated 31.08.2018 for an amount of Rs.23,990/- only having a warranty of one year from  the date of its purchase. Further, the complainant has visited to our authorized service center on 25.10.2018, where he reported to our authorized engineer about the screen bend as a curve. There is no such defect in the aforementioned mobile. After receiving of complaint the case was allocated to our authorized engineer(Sh. Dalip Kumar). After proper inspection or testing of the aforesaid mobile phone, he comes to the conclusion that there no malfunction detected rather touch screen and main board of the mobile is damaged. As damage is never covered under warranty, hence his warranty becomes void and simultaneously given an estimate for repair i.e. Rs.17,077.01 only(inclusive of all taxes). As the repair can only be initiated after customer approval for the same on the estimate as shared with the customer. Customer approves the same by signing the estimate sheet. Hence, after approval of the customer dated 30.10.2018, the damaged parts such as touch screen and main board replaced by our authorized engineer by payment of Rs.14,090/- only(because of screen promotional charged less compare to estimate)and returned  to complainant with his full satisfaction. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs No.2 & 3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

                Notice was issued to the OP No.1 through registered post (vide registered post No.CH057698010IN on 18.03.2019 to OP No.1, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP No.1; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Op No.1, he was proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 22.04.2019.

3.             The learned counsel for complainant has tendered the affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 & C-2 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs No.2 & 3 has tendered the Affidavit Annexure R-2/A alongwith documents Annexure R-2/1 to R-2/4 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and representative of Ops No.2 & 3 and gone through the entire record minutely and carefully.

5.             Admittedly, the mobile set, namely, Oppo F9 PRO was purchased by the complainant  for self use to earn his livelihood from OP No.1 for an amount  of Rs.23,990/-. It is also evident that the screen of the mobile set got bent, in the shape of curve, during the warranty period and for same was repaired by the OP No.2 after receiving the payment of Rs. 14,090/-(Annexure C-2). The complainant has alleged that the OP No.1 has sold a defective set to him and thus he is entitled to the refund of the cost price of the mobile set. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant contended that the screen of the mobile set got bent in the shape of curve, within a period of two months from its purchase, which proves that it was a defective set which had been sold by the OP No.1 to the complainant. It is contended that there was no justification on the part of the OP No.2 to raise the repair charges as the mobile set was within warranty. It is contended that there was no lapse or negligence on the part of complainant while handling the mobile set in question. It is further contended that the OP No.2 even failed to detect the real cause of bending in the mobile set. It is prayed that the OPs be advice to refund the amount of Rs.23,990/- alongwith interest  @ 12% from 31.08.2018 till realization.

6.             The OPs No.2 and 3 appearing through its authorized representative countered the contentions and assertions of the complainant stating that the mobile set was inspected by him being authorized engineer and after proper inspection and testing by him, no mal-functioning in the mobile set was detected. The authorized representative contended that the touch screen and main board were found damaged which are never covered under warranty. It is contended that a repair estimate of Rs. 17,077.01 was provided to the complainant which was duly approved by him and thereafter touch screen and main board were replaced by charging an amount of Rs.14,090/-. The authorized representative asserted that the mobile set was returned to the complainant on his satisfaction with the repairs. Concluding the arguments, the authorized representative stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile set and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.             We do not agree with the contentions of the OPs No.2 & 3 that the touch screen and main board of the mobile set has got damaged due to the negligence of the complainant because no job-sheet containing such a recital supporting the version of the OPs No.2 & 3 has been made available on record. We have perused the estimated bill(Annexure R-2/2), wherein a reference of the job-sheet has been given as under:-

        “This is with reference to Job on INHR03120181025R1647. The handset on inspection found to be Liquid Damage/Physical Damage/ General Failure, the approximate repair cost inclusive of GST charges”.

8.             From the above, it is clear that the technical person/authorized engineer of OP No.2 was not sure as to the real cause of the damage to the screen as the damages in the handset, upon inspection, had been mentioned due to liquid damage/physical damage/general failure. The technical person/authorized engineer was not certain as to which of the cause out of three causes i.e. liquid damages/physical damages/general failure was the cause of the damages of the screen. Thus, the OPs No.2 & 3 have failed to explain the reason of bending of mobile set in the shape of curve. Moreover, we do not come across any inspection report, in the shape of an affidavit, of the authorized engineer, namely, Sh. Dalip Kumar, who inspected and checked the mobile set. Since, the mobile set got bent during the warranty period, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the OP No.2 to charge the repair charges during the warranty period of the mobile set.

9.             In view of the aforesaid facts, we have no hesitation to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.2 & 3 while rendering services to the complainant and thus, both are liable to compensate the complainant jointly and severally. The present complaint is dismissed qua OP No.1. However, the complainant has not able to prove the manufacturing defect in the mobile set. It is not a case of the complainant that no defect accrued thereafter in the mobile set during its functioning.

10.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.2 & 3:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.14,090/-i.e. the repair charges of the mobile set to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-as litigation charges.

 

11.            The OPs No. 2 & 3 shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OPs No.2 & 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 23.12.2019

 

          Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini             Satpal

                  Member                Member                                      President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         Satpal

                                         President