This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that on 30.10.2018 the complainant  purchased a mobile set being model number Samsung J2 (18) (J-250) from S.S. Telecom at Rs. 6241/- only in warranty period after deducting GST @ 12% and after a few days the said mobile  started to create problem like automatically switch of and so many problem and unfortunately one day the mobile was gone to dark patches on display and many more defects were found in the said mobile set and then immediately on 26.11.2018 the complainant rushed to opposite party no. 1 to remove these problem and after assuring by them he was handed over the mobile along with box to opposite party no. 1 for removal of all defects and then very next day he met to opposite party no. 1 for receiving the said mobile and he shocked to know that he had to pay Rs.2500/- to them for removal of dark patches on the display and then he requested them that this mobile is under the warranty period so how  they can charge such amount from him and thereafter he visited to opposite party no. 2 for putting his grievances but they also ignore him and again a few days later he approached to opposite party no. 2 for lodging his complaint again they made excuse and requested him to lodge complaint before opposite party no. 1 and thereafter complainant visited a number of time to both opposite party offices for removal of defects of the mobile but ultimately the complainant was denied by the opposite parties to say that he will not be entitled to get any assistant and the cause of action of this case arose on and from the date when the opposite parties denied to give any assistance and another cause of action arose on when they demanded Rs. 2500/- for removal of defects on mobile and the same is continuing till today.

            Complainant filed the complaint petition praying directions upon the opposite parties to remove dark patches on display and to pay sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, harassment, reputation, misguided and misbehave and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for litigation cost and to give any such further order/orders as this Ld. Forum may deem fit and proper.

The opposite party No. 2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him.  This opposite party submits that the opposite party no. 2 provides one year warranty in case of handset and the warranty covers only the defects in product arising out manufacturing or faulty workmanship within the warranty period and the warranty of the product means that in case of any problem with the handset, the hand set will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy and the warranty of the handset is subject to conditions mentioned in the warranty policy that comes with the product manual and whenever a complaint is lodged an acknowledgement of service request by the said service centre and on completion of the servicing a Job Sheet is issued and the said acknowledgment of service request and Job Sheet issued by the service centre specifies the name, contact details, the defect description of the product as narrated by the complainant and the service provided against the complaint lodged and the nature of defect noted in the ‘defect description’ column of the acknowledgment of service request is based upon the complaint by the complainant and as such it does not tantamount to the admission of the alleged defect as described by the complainant in any manner whatsoever and on receiving of the said handset the opposite party no. 1 took the said handset for inspection and upon primary inspection of the said handset it transpired that the touch screen/display of the said handset had dark patches on it and it lost its touch sensitivity and it could lose its touch sensitivity and/or have dark patches on it and too much pressure gets applied to it due to some external reasons and such dark patches are the dead pixel that appear on the handset screen as a stationary black patch and such random shut off and  occurs when the handset is dropped a good number of times and for the reason the battery connectivity gets effected and issues in the said handset was due to the mishandling on the part of the use of the said handset.

The opposite party no. 2 also states that on November 26, 2018 when the complainant approached the opposite party no. 1 with the said handset, the service engineer of opposite party no. 1 informed the complainant the actual situation and clarified that the warranty coverage got void for the reason of mishandling of the said handset and any repair and/or replacement of the spare parts of the handset would be on chargeable basis and the complainant failed to understand the situation and demanded for free of cost repair of the same and whenever the service centre issues a letter of Estimation describing the nature of defect it also lays down the repair requirements in the said letter of Estimation and however the complainant has failed to bring on record any letter of Estimation that had been provided to complainant with such alleged estimation of Rs. 2500/- and the complainant has failed to provide any expert opinion so the complainant is not entitled to get free of cost repair of the said handset and the issues in the handset was caused due to mishandling of the said handset and not due to alleged manufacturing defect so any repairs was subject to payment of the required charges and thus it is prayed that your Honour may graciously be pleased to dismiss the complaint and pass such other order(s) and/or direction(s) as your Honour may deem fit and proper.      

   The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

Complainant filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of the complainant are taken into consideration for passing final order.

      Ex- parte Argument advanced by the agent/ advocate of the complainant heard in full.

 From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party or not?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this case.

1. In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant herein being a customer of the opposite party No.1 purchased a mobile set of opposite party No.2 manufacturing Company so the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party.
2. Both the complainant and the opposite party are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. For mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs. 20,00,000/- limit of this Forum, so this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3.  The complainant herein purchased a mobile set of the opposite party no.2 Company from the retailer. Within a short period of purchase of the said set the complainant found that the set is defective then the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 for repairing the same but after inspection he estimated a cost amounting to Rs.2500/- for removing defects. As the defects occurred within the warranty period so the complainant informed the matter to the opposite party no.2 who on his turn advised the complainant to approach again before the opposite party no.1 for removing the defects. Following the advice of the opposite party No.2 the complainant again approached the opposite party no.1 to remove the defects but the opposite party no.1 did not consider the repairing within the warranty period. In such a way the complainant run from pillar to post like a shuttle cork. Getting no alternative the complainant prayed reliefs as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.

Now after perusing the complaint petition, written version, evidence on affidavit, written argument of the complainant and hearing the ex-parte argument advanced by the complainant it appears that the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 for repairing the defects within a short period of purchase but the opposite party no.1 did not consider the warranty period rather he charged a sum of Rs.2500/- for repairing the set. Then the complainant approached the opposite party no.2 for getting his set repaired free of cost within the warranty period but the opposite party no.2 also refused to entertain the plea of this complainant. As a result the complainant being law abiding person preferred the recourse of this Forum. So from the above discussion it is crystal clear that the complainant was refused by the opposite parties in respect of repairing the mobile set within the warranty period. The opposite party no-2 in his written version assailed that the warranty coverage got void for the reason of mishandling of the said handset and any repair and/or replacement of the spare parts of the handset would be on chargeable basis and the complainant failed to understand the situation and demanded for free of cost repair of the same and whenever the service centre issues a letter of Estimation describing the nature of defect it also lays down the repair requirements in the said letter of Estimation and however the complainant has failed to bring on record any letter of Estimation that had been provided to complainant with such alleged estimation of Rs. 2500/- and the complainant has failed to provide any expert opinion so the complainant is not entitled to get free of cost repair of the said handset and the issues in the handset was caused due to mishandling of the said handset and not due to alleged manufacturing defect so any repairs was subject to payment of the required charges. The purchase of the set is not disputed and the opposite party No.2 admitted the sale and approach for repairing within the warranty period. The plea taken by the opposite party No.2 in the written version is bereft of merit and no leg to stand. By refusing the claim of the complainant to repair the mobile set free of cost the opposite parties frustrated the myth of goodwill of the business as well as flouted the conditions of warranty period. The opposite parties for the sake of refusing the claim of repairing the set within the warranty period manufactured a story of mishandling, any letter of estimation. And the reason for refusal of service free of cost is not believable in the eye of this Forum so we may hold that the opposite party committed deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice. As such the complaint petition is deserved to be allowed with cost & compensation.

4. The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant has abled to prove his case and the Opposite Party is liable to pay the ordered amount.
6698606.  

Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being no.183 of 2018 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party with a litigation cost of Rs.8,000/-.

The whole gamut of the facts and circumstances leans in favour of the complainant. We, therefore, allow the complaint and Opposite Party is jointly and /or severally liable to repair the impugned mobile set or replace the said mobile set by a new one having same feature to this complainant within 45 days from the date of order.

The opposite party No.1&2 are directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for harassment and mental agony.

At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Partyshall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the  Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.