BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.467 of 2015

Date of Instt. 02.11.2015

Date of Decision : 16.08.2016

Varun Sharma aged about 23 years son of Ramesh Sharma, R/o H.No.137/13e Madhuban Colony, Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.WS Retail Services Pvt Ltd., Khasra No.435, Road No.04, Lal Dora Ext.Mahipalpur, Delhi-110037.

2.Multitech System (Authorized Service Centre of ASUS Company), 797 HBC Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, near GTB Gurudwara, Jalandhar- 144001

3.Asus India Pvt Ltd., Importer Address:- YCH Logistics India Pvt Ltd., N-67, Phase No-4, Verna Industrial Area, Verna Goa0403722.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Dara Singh Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.Sanjeev Sharma Adv., counsel for the OP No.2.

Opposite party No.3 exparte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that complainant purchased a mobile phone ASUS Zenphone from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.9999/- with the warranty of one year. The said mobile phone became defective and the complainant handed over the same to OP No.2 authorized service centre of OP NO.3 on 6.10.2015 but they refused to give service under warranty by stating that water label sticker is slightly red, as such it needs warranty approval from the head office. The complainant submitted that there is no direct contact of water and phone was never dropped in water but stopped working suddenly. OP No.2 admitted that sticker can also turn into red due to some moisture or various other reasons. Complainant also raised the issue in front of the company and explained the matter with an email but no proper reply has been given. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund the cost of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.9999/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply OP No.1 pleaded that OP No.1 is engaged in selling the goods manufactured or produced by other manufacturers. So, they have no service to provide under warranty of the product to the consumer because complainant is a consumer of OPs No.2 & 3. OP No.1 denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In its written reply, OP No.2 pleaded that the said set was not covered under warranty as due to water contact of the set the water label sticker was red, hence service centre was not authorized to repair the set under warranty. OP No.2 further submitted that their service engineer Neeraj never argued that the sticker can turn into red due to some moisture or various other reasons. So, OP No.2 was to provide the service, subject to approval of the manufacturer i.e. OP No.3. OP No.2 denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP No.3 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

5. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A and evidence of the OP No.1 was closed by order. Further learned counsel for OP No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A and closed evidence.

7. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased a mobile phone ASUS Zenphone from OP No.1 vide invoice Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.9999/- with the warranty of one year. The said mobile phone became defective and the complainant handed over the same to OP No.2 authorized service centre of OP NO.3 on 6.10.2015 but they refused to give service under warranty by stating that water label sticker is slightly red, as such it need warranty approval from head office. Complainant submitted that there is no direct contact of water nor it was ever dropped in water but stopped working suddenly. OP No.2 admitted that sticker can also turn into red due to some moisture or various other reasons. Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to the OP through email dated 19.10.2015 and 18.12.2015 Ex.C3 but inspite of that OP neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant within warranty nor replaced the same with new one. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

9. Whereas the case of the OP No.1 is that OP No.1 is engaged in selling the goods manufactured or produced by other manufacturers. So, they have no service to provide under warranty of the product to the consumer because complainant is a consumer of OPs No.2 & 3. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1 qua the complainant.

10. Whereas the case of the OP No.2 is that the said set was not covered under warranty as due to water contact of the set the water label sticker became red, hence service centre was not authorized to repair the set under warranty. OP No.2 further submitted that their service engineer Neeraj never argued that the sticker can turn into red due to some moisture or various other reasons. So, OP No.2 was to provide the service, subject to approval of the manufacturer i.e. OP No.3. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.2 qua the complainant.

11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from OP No.1 vide invoice Ex.C1 on 3.11.2014 for a sum of Rs.9999/- with warranty of one year. The said mobile set became defective on 6.10.2015 and the complainant handed over the same to OP No.2, authorized service centre of OP No.3 manufacturer of the mobile set, vide job sheet Ex.C2 who checked the mobile set of the complainant and reported that the same was found water label sticker red, as such it need warranty approval from the head office team but the head office team i.e. OP No.3 neither sent any approval nor refused the same and the complainant suffered a lot since 6.10.2015 and ultimately he was forced to file the present complaint. OP No.3 did not turn-up despite service and as such the case of the complainant against OP No.3 manufacturer remained unrebutted and unchallenged. The complainant even reported the matter to OP No.3 vide email Ex.C3 dated 19.10.2015 and they called the information from OP No.2 vide email dated 18.12.2015 Ex.C3 but inspite of that the OPs No.2 & 3 did not repair the mobile set of the complainant. So, we are of the opinion that the OPs No.2 & 3 have failed to prove on record that the mobile set of the complainant was water logged. As such, OPs No.2 & 3 are liable to repair the mobile set of the complainant and make it fully functional without charging any amount from complainant as the same was within warranty and was handed over to the OP No.2 on 6.10.2015.

12. Resultantly, we partly allow this complaint and OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to repair the mobile set of the complainant and make it fully functional without charging any amount from the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. OPs No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1000/-. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

16.08.2016 Member President