DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.02 of 01-01-2014

Decided on 07-05-2014

Mangal Singh S/o Sukhcharan Singh R/o Maur Mandi, Tehsil Maur, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Bhagwati Telecom, Thana Road, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda 151509, through its Proprietor.

2.Micromax Informatics Ltd., HO: Micromax House, # 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurgaon (Haryana).

3.UT Enterprises, Computerized Mobile Service Centre, #2498, Street Bangi House, Mehna Marg, Bathinda, through its Proprietor.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.S.S Sandhu, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Amit Ghai, counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3.

Opposite party No.1 ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased one mobile handset model A116 bearing IMEI No.911304255723433 for Rs.13,800/- vide invoice No.4213 dated 27.10.2013 from the opposite party No.1, manufactured by the opposite party No.2 with one year warranty on dated 27.10.2013. After 17 days of the purchase of the abovesaid mobile handset, it started giving the problem of hang while using it for making calls and there was cosmetic change in its body. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1, it asked him to approach the opposite party No.3, the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.2. On 13.11.2013, the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and told it about the defect in the mobile handset in question. The officials of the opposite party No.3 checked the abovesaid mobile handset and conveyed the complainant that the amount of Rs.2700/- shall be charged for its repair. The complainant requested the opposite party No.3 that there is manufacturing defect in the abovesaid mobile handset and it has gone out of order mere after 17 days of its purchase, therefore the defective mobile handset is liable to be replaced with a new mobile handset of the same model, but the opposite party No.3 refused to listen to him. The mobile handset in question is still lying with the opposite party No.3. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties either to refund the price of the mobile handset in question or in alternative to replace the defective mobile handset with new one of same model alongwith cost and compensation.

2. Registered notice has been sent to the opposite party No.1 on dated 10.1.2014 vide postal receipt No.A RP295353981IN but despite receiving the summons, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.1 before this Forum, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against it.

3. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that they never denied to provide their after sale services to the complainant as assured under the terms of the warranty and are still ready to provide the same subject to terms of the warranty. The complainant has not disclosed the specific defect in the abovesaid mobile handset and also the cause of defect, whether the defect in the mobile handset in question is due to liquid/physical damage. The complainant approached the authorized service centre i.e. opposite party No.3 for the repair of the abovesaid mobile handset on dated 13.11.2013, but the opposite party No.3 demanded the money from the complainant for the repair as the mobile handset in question was physically damaged and not covered under the warranty. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 further pleaded that the complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to support his allegation regarding the defect in the mobile handset in question. The warranty period covers the range of faults that ensue normally from mechanical functioning of the mobile handset without any interference or outside influences. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 further pleaded that they repaired the abovesaid mobile handset free of cost if it is within the warranty period and as per the limited warranty terms the replacement is limited only to those cases where repair is not possible or where there is a genuine problem of repeated repairs of the same problem. As per the terms of the warranty, the warranty of the abovesaid mobile handset and accessories are different. The warranty of the mobile handset is one year, for batteries, chargers, headsets and cable for 6 months. The complainant has intentionally not produced the warranty alongwith his complaint. In case, the mobile handset be found physically or liquid damage, in that case the mobile handset be repaired on the chargeable basis only. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 further pleaded that during the inspection of the mobile handset in question, the opposite party No.3 found the physical damaged and gave an estimate for the amount of Rs.2700/- to the complainant and at that time he agreed to the same, but later on he has filed the present complaint. The abovesaid mobile handset is duly repaired and the complainant can collect it after paying the repair charges as agreed at the time of deposit of the mobile handset in question.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. The mobile handset model A116 bearing EMEI No.911304255723433 purchased by the complainant for Rs.13,800/- vide invoice No.4213 dated 27.10.2013 from the opposite party No.1 became defective after 17 days of its purchase as it started giving the problem of 'hang' while using it for making calls and there was cosmetic change in its body. On 13.11.2013, the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and told it about the defect in the mobile handset in question. The officials of the opposite party No.3 checked the abovesaid mobile handset and conveyed the complainant that the amount of Rs.2700/- shall be charged for its repair. The complainant requested the opposite party No.3 that there is manufacturing defect in the abovesaid mobile handset and it has gone out of order after 17 days of its purchase, but the opposite party No.3 refused to do anything. The mobile handset in question is still lying with the opposite party No.3.

7. On the other hand the submission of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 is that the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 for the repair of the abovesaid mobile handset on dated 13.11.2013, but the opposite party No.3 demanded the money from him for the repair as the mobile handset in question was physical damaged and not covered under the warranty, but the complainant has failed to deposit the same and has filed the present complaint. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 further submitted that they never denied to provide their after sale services to the complainant as assured under the terms of the warranty and are still ready to provide the same subject to terms of the warranty. The complainant has not disclosed the specific defect in the abovesaid mobile handset. The complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to support his allegation. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 further submitted that they would repair the abovesaid mobile handset free of cost if it is within the warranty period. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 further submitted that during the inspection of the mobile handset in question, the opposite party No.3 found the physical damaged and gave an estimate for the amount of Rs.2700/- to the complainant and at that time he agreed to the same. The abovesaid mobile handset is duly repaired and the complainant can collect it after paying the repair charges as agreed at the time of deposit of the mobile handset in question.

8. A perusal of job sheet No.1059 dated 13.1.2013, Ex.C2, shows that 'Warranty as per POP 'With Warranty'; Physical condition of phone when received:-Having cracked front & back and Nature of complaint:-Request for cosmetic change'. A perusal of Condition No.1 of the Warranty Terms & Conditions, Ex.C4, shows:-

“1) The warranty is given only to the original purchaser of the product (Customer). The warranty will be applicable for twelve (12) months from the date of original purchase for mobile handset and six (6) months for accessories (Included in the mobile device sales package) other than the media on which any software is provided, CD-Rom, memory card.”

The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have submitted that the mobile handset in question was physically damaged, the opposite party No.3 has prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs.2700/- for its repair and at that time the complainant was agreed to pay the same and the abovesaid mobile handset duly repaired is lying with the opposite party No.3 and complainant has not come back to collect it. As the mobile handset in question was physically damaged as such it was out of warranty. Regarding this defence of the opposite party No.2 a perusal of job sheet/service card shows that warranty as per POP with warranty is 'ticked'. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the mobile handset in question is liquid/physically damaged so it is not covered under the warranty, to support their this version the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have placed nothing on file. In his complaint the complainant has alleged about two problems, one is regarding 'hang' and second is regarding 'cosmetic colour change'. The problem of 'hang' is a software problem and changing of the cosmetic colour is related to accessories. A perusal of warranty card shows that all the accessories are covered in the warranty period of 6 months and warranty on the whole mobile handset in question is one year. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have not placed on file any evidence to support their version that the mobile handset in question was liquid/physically damaged and also failed to prove that how it effected the working of the mobile handset in question or can cause any impact on the cosmetic colour of the abovesaid mobile handset.

9. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Hence this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.1. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are directed to rectify the problem relating to 'hang' while updating the software of the mobile handset in question free of cost and further directed to rectify the problem of cosmetic colour change free of cost, in case it is not possible to rectify this problem, the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 will replace the outer body of the mobile handset in question with new one free of cost and after rectifying all the problems the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 will handover the mobile handset in question to the complainant i.e. already lying with the opposite party No.3.

10. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

07-05-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member