Order-13.
Date-18/08/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainants’ case in short is that the OP-1 is the marketing agent and OP-2 is the manufacturer and OP-3 is service provider. On 05.10.2016 Complainant-1 purchased one Samsung J2 Mobile Phone from OP-1 at a price of Rs.7,590/-. The Mobile set is covered under warranty for one year. At the time of purchase the Complainant was advised by OP-1 to charge the Mobile at least for 16 hours. The Complainant followed the same and found that the Moble is getting 65 percent charged. On 07.10.2016 the Complainants went on a trip for about six days and during the trip she also faced similar problem. After returning Kolkata i.e. on 14.10.2016 the petitioner lodged a complaint to OP-1.The OP-1 opined that it is software problem and advised the Complainant to visit the office of OP-3, that is Service Centre of OP- 2.
The Complainant visitied the OP-3 and OP-3 then and then charged the set and found that the Mobile Set was not functioning properly. On 16th October,2016 the Complainant handed over the Mobile set to OP-3, on 15.10.2016 the Complainant received a phone call from OP-3 informing that the Complainants Mobile is damaged due to over charging and the Complainants are required to pay Rs.400/- for that purpose. The Complainant became astonished to learn the advice of OP-3. The Complaimnant have alleged that the Mobile was not getting proper charge from the date of purchase and there is manufacturing defect in the set. OP-1, however, after few hours made a different story of ‘liquid damage’. Although, there was not a single drop of lliquid found in the set either by the Complainants or OP-03. The Complainant however, paid Rs.500/-, unwillingly to resolve the issue. The OP-3 is now asking Rs.4,500/- for resolving the same issue. The Mobile is still lying with OP-3, i.e. service provider. The Complainants have alleged deficiency of service against the OPs and have prayed for replacement of Mobile set along with other reliefs in terms of prayers in the petition of complaint.
OP-2 has contested the case in filing w.v. contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable either in law or in fact and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that no specific allegation has been made out by the Complainants against the OP-2. It is stated that the Complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the Hand set in question, but the alleged manufacturing defect cannot be determined simplicitor on oral submission of the complaint and needs a proper analysis / test to confirm the same. It is stated that Compaliants have miserably failed to establish the alleged manufacturing / technical defect and that the Complainant has not also placed any analysis / test report to establish the manufacturing defect.
It is stated that the Complainant has filed the case to obtain unfair advantage and accordingly the case is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the Complainants booked the Handset to OP-3 on 16.10.2016 and upon inspection of the subject handset it transpires that there was liquid seepage inside the said Handset and the Printed Board Assembly got burnt. It is stated that such liquid seepage and burnt PBA was the result of the uncared handling of the said Handset. It is stated that the warranty is only for defect arising out of manufacturing or faulty workmanship and that the warranty is subject to some conditions. In the present case, the warranty of the Handset in question have become void due to liquid seepage and for not using the Handset as par spepcification and accordingly, an estimate for repair of Rs.4,500/- was provided to the Complainant, but the Complainants did not approve the estimate and started demanding for free of cost repair or replacement of the Handset with a new one. It is stated that the Handset prior its first usage was advised to be charged 8 hours only and thereafter charging to be done as per requirement. It is stated that the Complainants have filed this case to malign the reputation of the Answering OP. This OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
No other OPs have contested the case and the case has proceeded ex parte against the remaining OPs.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering service to the Complainants?
- Whether the Complainants are entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have gone through the documents on record i.e photocopies of Challans and Warranty Card, photocopy of acknowledgement and service request, photocopy of identity card and other documents on record.
We find that OP-2 is the manufacturer of the subject Mobile Phone. OP-3 is the Service Centre of OP-2. OP-1 is dealer or marketing agent of the subject Mobile phone. It appears that on 05.10.2016 the Complainants purchased a Mobile Handset being Model No. J2, manufactured by Samsung, from OP-1. It appears that OP-1 provided one year warranty in the case of the Handset. It is argued from the side of the OP-2 that the warranty covers only the defects in product arising out of manufacturing or faulty workmanship. We find that the Complainants have alleged that the battery of the Handset had charging problem. The Complainants also took the said Handset to OP-3 on 17.10.2016 for the service request. It appears that the Mobile Handset had charging problem. OP-2 upon inspection stated that there was liquid speeage inside the Handset and that the Printed Board Assembly got burnt. It is stated that the Complainants handled the Handset in uncared manner and liquid speeage and PBA was the result of the uncared handling of the said Handset. It is alleged that the Complainants have paid a sum of Rs.500/- for the repair, but OPs demanded further Rs.4,500/- from the Complainants for repair. It is alleged that the Handset is still lying with the OP-3 i.e. the service provider.
Be that as it may, we find that the subject Mobile set showed problem of charging and the Mobile was getting only 65 percent charge. OP-1 opined it was software problem. OP-3 stated to the Complainant that the Mobile got damaged due to over charging.
Be that as it may, the problem of the Mobile set is not rectified and the Mobile is still lying with the OP-3 i.e. the service provider. We think that while a new Mobile would show charging problems since the time of purchase, it must be a defective set. Moreover, OP 1 and 2 have also tried their hands to rectify the defect, but to no good, and the Mobile is still lying with the OP-3. We think that expert opinion is not required when the Mobile set palpably shows problem of charging since the date of purchase. We find that the Complainants purchased the Handset on 05.10.2016 and the Mobile demonstrated problem of charging on 07.10.2016 and thereafter, so, the fact remains that the Mobile set was not functioning properly, though the Mobile Handset was charged by OP-3 on the spot. We think that the problem is, of course, with the Handset. The Complainants purchased the Mobile, but they have been unable to use the same for the inherent defect of the Mobile set. We think that the Mobile must be replaced by the manufacturer.
Consequently, the case merit success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP-2 and ex parte aginst the other OPs.
OP-2 is directed to replace the Mobile phone by a new one with new warranty within one month from the date of this order.
OP-2 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant as litigation cost.
We make no order against OP 1 and 3 being the Marketing Agent and the Service Provider.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under appropriate provision in C.P. Act.
