Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 569.
Instituted on : 16.11.2018.
Decided on : 10.05.2022.
Ashu Dhall D/o Gulshan Dhall /o H.No.744/8 Salara Mohalla, Rohtak.
……….………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Singhal’s Enterprises Old 432/6 Now 993/33 Near Axis Bank, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- M/s B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Jain Mansion, HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001 through it Proprietor.
- Managing Director, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2nd 3rd , 4th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-122002.
..…….……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Basant Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the opposite party no.2 & 3.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone Samsung S8 Gold bearing IMEI No.358057082670173 vide invoice no.828 dated 14.07.2018 for a sum of Rs.41900/- with one year warranty. But just after few days of purchase, the above said mobile started creating problem in charging. Phone is also having network problem etc. Complainant approached to respondent no.2 and got deposited his handset for repairing on 10.08.2018, but the handset has not been properly repaired and complainant is facing inconvenience in using the said mobile. Complainant requested the opposite parties to return the cost of mobile phone but they refused for the same. The act and conduct of the opposite parties of selling the defective mobile to the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.1 received back duly served but opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service and as such opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.12.2018 of this Commission. Opposite party No. 3 in its reply has submitted that in the present case the warranty of alleged unit has gone barred due to damage/display broken due to mishandling on the part of complainant and the same is not covered under warranty. In fact the complainant has concocted a false story just only to grab illegal benefits for his own wrong. There is no manufacturing defect and the complainant is trying to get illegal benefits of his own wrong by concealment of material facts of the case. In fact the complainant in regards to complaint regarding the unit in question, approached to the service center of answering respondent on 10.08.2018 vide job sheet no.4266485717 and reported network, charging & battery problem in the unit. The officials of service center checked the unit, but no such issue was found in the unit. Software of the unit was updated and the complainant took the delivery of unit to his full satisfaction. After that complainant again approached to the service center of answering respondent on 20.11.2018 vide job sheet no.4273124758 and reported display broken problem in his unit. The officials of service center cheeked the unit and found that the unit is damaged/display and back glass broken due to negligence/mishandling on the part of complainant. The engineer told the complainant that the unit cannot be considered under warranty as the same is damaged due to negligence on the part of complainant and the repair of the unit shall be on chargeable basis and an estimate of repair was given to the complainant. But the complainant become adamant not to pay the charges of repair and started demanding replacement/refund and refused to get his unit collect. After that the answering respondent came to know about the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought. Ld. counsel for opposite party no.2 vide his statement dated 13.03.2019 has stated that the reply filed on behalf of opposite party no.3 be also read on behalf of opposite party No.2.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence on dated 30.08.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on 10.02.2020.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per bill Ex.C1, complainant had purchased the mobile phone of Samsung for Rs.41990/- on dated 14.07.2018. As per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 10.08.2018 there was a problem of “Network, handset slow charge, battery drain”. And the warranty status is shown as full warranty. On the other hand opposite party has also placed on record job sheet Ex.R1 & Ex.R2. As per job sheet Ex.R2,
dated 20.11.2018, there was again problem in display and the back glass broken in the alleged mobile but the same has not been repaired by the opposite party on the ground that unit is damaged/display and back glass broken due to negligence/mishandling on the part of complainant. But to prove the same no document has been placed on record by the opposite parties. As per the job sheets placed on record it is proved that the mobile in question became defective within warranty period, which could not be repaired by the opposite parties despite repeated visits of the complainant to the service centre of company. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party no.3 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 25% depreciation on it, as the mobile set was used by the complainant uninterruptedly for 4 months i.e. to pay Rs.31492/-(Rs.41990/- less 25%).
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 to refund the amount of Rs. 31492/-(Rupees thirty one thousand four hundred and ninety two only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 16.11.2018 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
10.05.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………..
Shyam Lal, Member
