DATE OF DISPOSAL: 07.11.2019.
Sri Karunakar Nayak,President:
The complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile for personal purpose from the O.P.No.1 with description of Samsung Model No: SM-J710FZKUINS on payment of Rs.14,900/- towards cost of the product and the date of purchase is 07.02.2017 bearing retail invoice No. 72. The said mobile manufactured by O.P.No.3. After using of said mobile for couple of months, it started problem like JIO emergency mode for which no call received or sent. When it was frequently noticed, the complainant reported the matter to the seller in person and being advised he had been to Sri Subham Electronics, Bramhapur Authorized Service Centre and handed over the handset for necessary repair and after software update the Authorized Service Center returned the same to the complainant within one day but not rectified the defect. On 6.10.2017 the authorized service centre received Rs.250/- towards repair of mobile charging socket within warranty period. The O.P.No.2 received mobile phone and handed over a company standby mobile set bearing job sheet No. 4246698940/6.10.2017 to the complainant. After seven days O.P.No.2 returned the complainant’s mobile and received company mobile. When the complainant charged SIM the same defect noticed. On 26.10.2018 the complainant handed over telephone to O.P.No.2 vide Job sheet No.4253519565 dt.26.10.2018 and received company stand by set. After 15 days the O.P.No.2 returned the mobile to the complainant to exchange the mother board. On 06.02.2018 the complainant deposited Rs.1110/- vide Receipt No. INM 23149681 towards extension of warranty. When the complainant charged SIM card the JIO SIM went to emergency mode. On 07.02.2018 the complainant handed over the mobile and returned back within a week after repair. They have deliberately made the deficiency in service by paying a deaf ear to the grievance of the complainant in not rectifying the problem in the handset of the complainant which comes under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund the total cost of handset of Rs.14,900/-, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical harassment, litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but neither O.P.No.1 appeared nor filed any written version. Hence O.P.No.1 declared exparte on dated 09.08.2018.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No.2 & 3 filed version through his advocate. It is stated in Para 1 of complaint with regard to purchase of mobile phone of Samsung make on 07.02.2017 for consideration being submission based on documents, complainant may be put to establish same by producing original sealed and signed invoice and warranty card. In Para 2 and 3 of complaint with regard to detection of defect just after two month of use like displaying emergency mode and same was resolved just by software up gradation needs no comment. Further averments with regard to suggestion given through service centre for using JIO SIM is disputed and denied. Selection of service provided is always liberty of consumer but technically the size of SIM card, and speed like 2G, 3G and 4G matters and required to be used as per specification and support of the mobile phone. The averments made in Para 4 of the complaint with regard to lodging complaint on 06.10.2017, alleging defect in mobile charging socket is admitted. On inspection it is detected that the charging point of mobile is physically damaged and same was repaired on chargeable basis on consent of complainant. The mobile was received vide job number 4246698940 on 06.10.2017 by Sri Subham Electronics and on 10.10.2017 after repair and inspection found to be working perfectly and returned on 10.10.2017. In order to maintain goodwill and healthy customer relationship, the complainant was provided with a stand by mobile. In such circumstances, this is not at all a case of deficiency in service. The averments made in Para 5 of complaint with regard to detection of same defect after repair is disputed. The first complaint was lodged alleging defect in charging point and the second complaint was received on alleged defect of network problem. The complaint was registered vide job No.4253519565 on 19.01.2018 by Sri Subham Electronics on alleged defect of JIO SIM EMERGENCY SHOW and the problem was rectified by replacing the PBA and after such replacement the mobile found performing perfectly and being satisfied the mobile was delivered on 25.01.2018. It is submitted, in order to maintain goodwill a stand by handset was provided to complainant for the alleged period required for repair and observation of the product. It is submitted that always assures best of its services, within its limitations and in this present case, never allowed complainant to suffer by providing a standby mobile. In Para 6 of complaint with regard to assurance given by O.Ps after replacement of PBA, is admitted. Further averments made in the Para with regard to availing offer of extended warranty on payment of consideration being materials on record, complainant may be put to establish it. It is submitted extended warranty is a conditional offer and can be availed by suitable customers by accepting the same by making payment to conclude a valid contract. In the present case complainant availed extended warranty for his own peace of mind, and to derive benefits from the contract. In Para 7 and 8 with regard to repetition of defect like emergency mode, is disputed and denied. The displaying emergency mode is not due to fault in mobile and is a defect in network. The signal strength is the only factor which monitors the performance of the mobile. Emergency mode is displayed only in case the signal strength is low or inadequate. Further averments of the complaint with regard to non-attendance of telephone call be ASM, is disputed and denied in absence of any materials on record. In Para 9 of complaint with regard to facing serious problems in communication with parents is disputed and denied in absence of any materials on record. Whenever a complaint is lodged same is attended by authorized service centre and during standard time taken for providing service a standby mobile was provided to complainant. In such circumstances, allegations made in the complaint is disputed and denied. Further averments made in the Para with regard to claim for replacement of the mobile or refund of price with interests alongwith compensation and litigation expenses is disputed and denied in absence of any materials on record. In the present complaint manufacturing defect in goods is not proved and/or deficiency in service is not established. It is submitted that in the present complaint manufacturing defect in goods is not proved and/or deficiency in service is not established. The cost and compensation cannot be filed on apprehension of defect in goods or deficiency in service and for which the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
5. On the date of hearing the complainant and advocate for O.P.No.2 & 3 were present. We heard argument from them and perused the case record and the materials placed on it. During the warranty period the handset was found to be defective for which the complainant handed over the said phone to O.P.No.2 on 06.10.2017 for necessary repair who returned the same to the complainant on the same day with an impression that the defect is rectified. Again the same problem arose as such the complainant went to O.P.No.2 on 26.10.2018 who returned the handset after software repair with an impression that the defect of the handset is rectified but actually the same defect continued. As the O.Ps failed to rectify the same inspite of repeated approach by the complainant, so the complainant compelled to file this complaint. Further, it reveals from the materials as record that the complainant has availed extended warranty of one year i.e. from 8.02.2018 to 7.02.2019 by paying Rs.1,109/- and during the said warranty period the complainant’s mobile became defective. It is pertinent to mention here that the O.P.Nos.2&3 have averred in their written version that the defect of the complainant’s mobile is due to net-work problem but it is admitted by the O.P.Nos.2 &3 that the PBA of the mobile has been replaced for smooth running of the mobile. Hence, it is crystal clear that the defect of the complainant’s mobile is not for the network problem.
6. On foregoing discussion it is clear evident that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
7. In the result, the complainant’s case is allowed. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to refund the cost of the defective mobile set i.e. Rs.14,900/- and Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental agony alongwith Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall be realized at the rate of 12% interest per annum. The complainant is also directed to return the defective mobile set to the O.Ps. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 07th November 2019 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
