Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 52.
Instituted on : 05.02.2018.
Decided on : 01.07.2019.
Suresh age 25 years, s/o Ramraji Kumar R/o Village-Makrauli Khurd, Teh. & Distt. Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Taneja Mobile Gallery, Opp. Jai Dayal & Sons, Gohana Stand, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- M/s B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Jain Mansion, HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001 through its Proprietor.
- Managing Director, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,2nd, 3rd, 4th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square Sector-43, Golf Course road, Gurgaon-122002.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Kapil Bajad, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rakesh Kumar Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased a mobile phone of Samsung Galaxy J-7 Prime from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.16900/- vide IMEI No.352335087202109 vide bill dated 3.3.2017. That after few months of its purchase, the said mobile phone started creating problem in charging. That complainant deposited his mobile phone with the opposite party no.2 for repairing on 03.01.2018 and the same was repaired but just after two days, it again started the same problem. That complainant again deposited the mobile phone on 08.01.2018 but the handset has not been properly repaired by the opposite parties and the mobile is still with the service centre. That complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the mobile set but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of mobile phone i.e. Rs.16900/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.50000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that complainant never approached the retailer for his complaint and the retailer has no role in repairing of handset. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost. Opposite party No.2 & 3 in their reply has submitted that the complainant in regard to his complaint had approached the service center of opposite party on 03.01.2018 and reported Slow Charging issue in his unit. The engineer of the service center checked the unit and resolved the issue by replacement of DATA Cable of the unit and the unit started working fine. After that, complainant again made the same complaint on 08.01.2018 and the engineer resolved the issue by replacement of PBA, Battery, JACK and TAPE of the unit and unit started working fine. After that, complainant never reported any issue and without any cause of action, directly filed the present complaint. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.2 & 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/J and closed his evidence on dated 17.10.2018. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence on 07.02.2019. Opposite party No.2 & 3 in their evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, document Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/3 and closed his evidence on 08.01.2019.
4. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant had purchased the mobile set on 03.03.3017 and as per copy of job sheet Ex.CW1/J dated 08.01.2018, there was problem of “Charging auto decrease/increase, when connect to charger”. As per reply filed by the opposite party, it is itself proved that there was problem in the charging of mobile phone and the same was repaired twice by the opposite party. On the other hand, contention of the complainant is that even after repair, the mobile is not working properly and the same is in the possession of service centre of the company. It is also observed that the defects appeared in the mobile set within warranty period but the same could not be removed by the opposite parties within warranty period which proves deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 40% depreciation on it, as the complainant has used the mobile set uninterruptedly for nine months.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 40% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.10140/-(Rupees ten thousand one hundred and forty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.02.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The mobile in question is already in the possession of service centre.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.07.2019.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
