DATE OF DISPOSAL: 20.06.2019.
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Aakash Pradhan 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 had purchased an LG D802 G2 mobile phone handset from the O.P.No.1 on 29.5.2014 for a sum of Rs.34,500/-. The IMEI No. of the handset was 357246-05-376410-4 and invoice number was 21. After a few months of the purchase, in the month of December, 2014 the complainant found some problems with the handset, i.e. the mobile phone was heating up, the display was going off on its own and the phone was not switching off even when it was being turned off. The complainant’s relative therefore submitted the handset to O.P.No.1 for repair on his behalf, since the co0mplainant was not in town. The job sheet number for the same was RNA 141220074856. On the next day the mobile was received by the complainant’s relative on his behalf as the complainant was not in town. The complainant’s relative noticed that the phone was returned with a small crack on the left side. He was also informed by the Executive of O.P.No.1 that his phone was opened and the battery was drained. The complainant received the phone on 6th January 2015. Upon checking the handset the complainant observed that the Wi-Fi and the Bluetooth were not working, the heating up problem was still persistent and the battery was also getting drained within minutes. On 22nd January 2015 the complainant called up on the customer carte helpline of O.P.No.3 to enquire about this problem. The complainant was told by the executive of the customer care to send the handset to O.P.No.2. The complainant therefore submitted the phone to O.P.No.2. The complainant was informed by the executive of O.P.No.2 that the motherboard of the phone was physically damaged. The complainant then contacted the customer care manager of O.P.No.3 who had a conversation with the executive of O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2. The complainant was then told by the customer care manager of O.P.No.3 that the O.P.No.1 declined to have opened the phone at all but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to replace the handset with a new one or refund the entire amount of Rs.34,500/- towards the cost of the mobile phone, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony suffered by him and cost of Rs.1000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but the O.P.No.1 and 2 neither preferred to appear nor filed written version as such the O.P.No.1 and 2 set exparte on 04.10.2016.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No.3 filed version through his advocate. It is stated that the allegations made by the complainant all are not true and hereby denied and the complainant has put to strict prove of the same. There is no cause of action to bring this present complaint against O.P.No.3 who is the manufacturer. The O.P.No.2 & 3 are not having their head office or any branch office at Bramhapur. This being not a case of denial of rendering service on receipt of valid complaint, the complaint is not maintainable. The alleged complaint is one governed by the limited terms of contract of guarantee for which reliefs claimed beyond said terms is not maintainable. Admittedly service is rendered within warranty period. In aforesaid circumstances, this is not a case of deficiency in service. The complainant in this case pleaded manufacturing defect in the mobile set of LG make without support of any materials on record or report of experts. The complaint is not even based on any technical advice and further same does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 13 and 14 of the Act to claim the reliefs against these O.Ps. Alleged defect in the mobile phone can not be determined without proper analysis or test of it. Without report of experts Hon’ble Forum can not exercise its jurisdiction. No claim is maintainable beyond the terms and conditions agreed under warranty card. On receipt of complaint the mobile set was repaired by putting minor efforts, that to without need to replace any part, vide job card No. RNA 141220074856 and delivered back to the satisfaction of complainant who in turn being fully satisfied received back the set by putting signature. It is explained by the technician that the alleged heating is not due to any defect in mobile set and same is due to display in bigger screen and depends upon its usage pattern, such as brightness adjustments, settings etc. The mobile phone detected to be working perfectly just by cleaning the battery connector and the complaint of “No power on” was resolved by charging the battery only. The mobile in dispute was performing perfectly just by cleaning the phone as reveals from the job dated 20.12.2014. Thereafter complaint submitted the mobile for repairing on alleged complaint of mother board broken. The service center explained that this is not a case of manufacturing defect and the mother board is broken only due to falling down of set on ground as explained during claiming service and same is not covered under warranty terms. Admittedly the mobile set is used by some relative of complainant. The mother board is broken after sale of the set as such this is not a case of manufacturing defect in set and the warranty being void, complaint is free to avail paid service and for that this is not a case of unfair trade practice. The O.P.No.2 & 3 is not having any branch office or head office at Bramhapur. The complaint lastly availed service from Bhubaneswar service center as such the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant refused to avail service on payment of charges as this a case where warranty is void. In such circumstances, there is no dispute to be adjudicated before this Hon’ble Forum. This is a premature complaint as O.P. never refused to repair the set on chargeable basis. This is a case, where the warranty is void as the mother board of the mobile set is damaged due to mishandling and this is not a case of silence in contract. The O.P.No.3 produce number of such mobile set and after proper certificate the same are released to market for sale. Without expert opinion it can not be concluded as defective mobile. The prayer portion of the complainant in the complaint is neither tenable nor lawful under the provision of C.P.Act, 1986. There is no provision for begging apology, replacement or refund of Rs.34,500/- as per said prayer and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the date of hearing we heard argument from the advocate of complainant and O.P.No.3 at length. We have gone through the case record and also perused the written version, written argument and documents available on the case record. It reveals that the complainant had purchased an LG D802 G2 mobile phone handset from the O.P.No.1 on 29.5.2014 for a sum of Rs.34,500/-. The IMEI No. of the handset was 357246-05-376410-4 and invoice number was 21. After a few months of the purchase, in the month of December, 2014 the complainant found some problems with the handset, i.e. the mobile phone was heating up, the display was going off on its own and the phone was not switching off even when it was being turned off. It also reveals that the alleged handset was submitted by the complainant’s relative for necessary repair vide job sheet No. RNA 141220074856 but the said handset was returned to the complainant’s relative with a small crack on it. Further it reveals that after receiving the phone from O.P.No.1, the complainant observed that the Wi-Fi and the Bluetooth were not working, the heating up problem was still persistent for which he contacted the customer care helpline of O.P.No.3 for redressal of his grievance, but the complainant was told by the Executive of Customer care to send the handset to O.P.No.2. But the executive of O.P.No.2 informed to the complainant that the mother board of the handset has been damaged. Thereafter the complainant intimated this fact to the Customer Care Executive of O.P.No.3 but the O.Ps did not take any step for repairing of the complainant’s handset.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that though O.P.No.1 and 2 were noticed by this Learned Forum to appear and filing written version, but they did not prefer to appear for contesting the case. As such taking the sole testimony of the complainant into consideration, we presumed that the above contention of complainant against O.P.No.1 & 2 are true. It also reveals that the complainant has sent notice to O.P.No.1 and copy thereof to O.P.No.3, but the O.Ps did not take any step for redressal of the complainant’s grievance. Undoubtedly for the aforesaid reason the complainant has sustained mental agony for which he compelled to file this case against the O.Ps as such he is to be compensated.
7. 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.
8. In the result, the complainant’s case is allowed against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to repair the defective mobile set of the complainant in free of cost with fresh warranty or in alternative refund the cost of the defective mobile set i.e. Rs.34,000/-. Further the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental agony alongwith Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. Both the orders shall be complied by the O.Ps within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum. The complainant is directed to refund 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 20th June 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
