BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.127 of 2018
Date of Institution: 13.04.2018
Date of Decision: 04.06.2019
Pankaj Mehta aged about 24 years son of Shri Krishan Mehta resident of Gali No.1, Suratgarhia Chowk, Sirsa Tehsil & District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
- Aggarwal Mobile Point, Purana Bazar, Shandidev Temple Road, Hanumangarh Town, Rajasthan through its proprietor.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd Samsung Head Quarter, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, Floor Tower C, Vipul Tech Square Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.
- Samsung Care Centre, Parkash Ratna Complex Street, Barnala Road, Sirsa District Sirsa through its proprietor.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Before: SH.R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SH.ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL……….MEMBER
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………MEMBER
Present: Sh. J.D.Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Opposite parties No.1 & 3 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that on 21.01.2017, the complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy S8 + Maple Gold mobile from OP No.1 on 02.05.2017 vide bill No.15104 against payment of Rs.64900/- and the handset in question was having one year guarantee. After some days of purchase, the mobile started creating problems. The Op No.3 has issued a job sheet on 03.08.2017 wherein problem of display has been shown and the Op No.3 has changed Octa of the handset but after 3-4 months, the handset again started problem. The Op No.3 again repaired the set by issuing job sheet regarding this but the hand set is not working properly. The complainant contacted the Ops either to replace the defective handset or to refund the cost thereof but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, only Op No.2 appeared and filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that the replying Op provides goods at the most competitive price and also to enable most impeccable after sales services and there is no intent whatsoever to deny the same. Had the complainant approached the service centre rightfully with correct facts, prompt service would have been provided. On the complaint of the complainant dated 03.08.2017, unit was duly checked and as per need OCTA of the unit was changed and handset was handedover to the complainant in OK condition. Thereafter, on 21.03.2018 the complainant reported the issue regarding unit dead. After checking, the necessary PBA and Black Glass were changed and the handset was delivered to the complainant in OK condition. The warranty of one year was subject to terms and conditions and the warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions:
1. Liquid logged/water logging.
2. Physically damage.
3. Serial No.missing.
4. Tampering.
5. Mishandling/burnt etc.
As per condition of warranty, replacement of the product or refund is expressly excluded and warranty covers only repair or replacement of any part thereof, which needs replacement or repair for any reason of defective workmanship of the defective components, which makes it clear that when there is defect in a part, it shall only be repaired and or replaced by the Ops. The complainant has filed the present complaint wherein it has levied false allegations regarding manufacturing defect in the unit. There is no deficiency in service on the part of replying Ops. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. Ops No.1 & 3 did not appear before this Forum despite sending of notice/ registered notice, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.02.2019 and 07.03.2019 respectively.
3. Thereafter, the complainant and appearing Op led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1, in which, he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also produced job card Ex.C2, another job card Ex.C3 and bill invoice Ex.C4. On the other hand, Op No.2 has tendered affidavit of Anup Kumar Mathur Ex.R1, wherein he has deposed in terms of the written statement and also produced document such as job card Ex.R2 and warranty card Ex.R3.
6. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased a new mobile handset Samsung Galaxy S8+ Maple Gold on 02.05.2017 vide bill No.15104 for Rs.64900/- As per allegations of the complainant, there was warranty of one year of the mobile and during the warranty period, the mobile of the complainant became defective as there was problem in the display and the Octa of the same was changed but after 3-4 months the handset again started creating problem and the same was again repaired by the OP No.3 but despite that the mobile of the complainant is not working properly, as a result of which the complainant had visited the Ops time and again but to no effect and ultimately, he has filed the present complaint.
7. Though, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that he is being harassed by the OP by not getting his mobile phone repaired and nor he has received the replacement of the mobile or has refunded the cost of the mobile despite spending of huge money by him from his own pocket and even the mobile has become defective twice earlier and the same was got repaired from the Ops.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.2 has strongly contended that the complainant has lodged complaint regarding non-working of mobile twice and all the times, the same was got repaired by the Ops without any costs and the same was made defect free upto the satisfaction of the complainant. The Op never refused to carry out the necessary repair of the mobile during the period of warranty.
9. It is a legal obligation of the dealer, service centre and manufacturer to provide after sale service to the customer like complainant. Since, the complainant had purchased the mobile on 02.05.2017 and thereafter, he approached the Ops for repair of the mobile twice and the same was repaired by the Ops and some parts such as octa was also replaced, but however, the mobile phone become out of order thereafter. The mobile phone was within the warranty period and it appears that there is inherent defect in the mobile, as a result of which, it went out of order despite getting it repaired time and again. So, it appears deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
10. In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to give replacement of the mobile with new mobile of the same make and model to the complainant without cost or in the alternate to make a refund of cost of mobile, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the mobile from the complainant. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 04.06.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
