BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 13 of 2018 .
Date of Institution : 14.1.2019
Date of Decision : 18.07.2019
Gulshan Kumar (aged about 35 year) son of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, resident of Village Jhorarnali, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Aman Mobiles, Circular Road, Near Shiv Chowk, Sirsa District Sirsa through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.
2. Samsung Service Centre, Prakash Ratna Complex Street, Barnala Road, Near Bhuman Shah Chowk, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Samsung Head Office: 20th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase 5, Sector 43, Gurugram, Haryana-122202 through its Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.
….Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL……MEMBER.
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Dinesh Verma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Deepak Monga, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the opposite party no.3.
Op no.2 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that the complainant had purchased a mobile handset Make Samsung Mobile Phone Model: Galaxy A7(6) Colour Black bearing IMEI: 352811082320379/352812082320377 from the op no.1 and the op no.1 charged an amount of Rs.14,500/- and issued bill No.683 dated 12.03.2018 and given one year warrantee of the same. It is further averred that thereafter complainant was shocked to notice that there was major defects arisen out in the said mobile set as the Display started blinking and brightness became low and on detecting the said defect in the mobile set, he immediately approached to the op no.1 and complained about the said defect in the mobile set and the op no.1 after checking the problem of said mobile set directed the complainant to approach Samsung Service Centre(op no.2) for repairing the said mobile set. Then complainant approached at the premises of op no.2 and handed over the above said mobile set on 28.12.2018 and disclosed whole fact and officials of the op no.2 after inspecting the mobile set told to the complainant the defects occurred in this mobile cannot be resolved. Thereafter, the complainant also made call on the customer care (Toll free) number of the op no.3 and disclosed the whole facts, but the complainant was bluntly refused either to remove the problem or to replace the same with new one, whereas the mobile of the complainant is well within the period of warranty period. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 6.03.2019 and ops no.1 & 3 appeared and filed separate written statement in which they have taken preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, suppression of true and material facts from this forum, estoppal mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. On merits, it is submitted by op no.1 that op no.1 has sold out the mobile to the complainant but, however, it is submitted that manufacturer of mobile is responsible for warranty and it was told to the complainant that he will avail warranty through care center. The answering op has sold out sealed packed mobile to complainant, hence the answering op is not responsible in any manner and it is care center, who will check the mobile and find out defect therein and to repair or replace as per situation. The complainant never visited the answering op at any point of time. The answering op has given him warranty of one year online from the date of purchase.
3. Opposite party no.3 also submitted in its written statement that in case after sale service/quality issue is brought to notice of the op/service center, as a policy matter the same is immediately corrected as a matter of priority. That had the complainant approached the service center of the answering op rightfully with correct facts, prompt service would have been provided but rather than doing so, the complainant has instead preferred the present motivated complaint hence the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal on this ground alone. It is further submitted that complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product and the alleged defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter submissions and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. The complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/ technical fault. It is further submitted that the complainant reported brightness low than display blank issue in his mobile. The engineer of company checked the unit and it was found that the display of unit needs replacement. The engineer told to the complainant that display of the mobile needs replacement and the same will be completely OK after replacement of display, but the complainant refused to get his mobile repaired and became adamant not to get his mobile repaired and without any cause started demanding replacement of his mobile and took the delivery of his mobile without repair. It is further submitted that answering op is ready to provide service to complainant as per conditions of warranty, but it is the complainant who had refused to get his mobile repaired. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
4. The parties have led evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered Ex.CW1/A- his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C1 bill of mobile, Ex.C2 Job card, whereas opposite party no.3 also tendered Ex.R1 affidavit of Anup Kumar Mathur, warranty terms and conditions Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
5. We have heard Ld. counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for Ops No.1&3 and perused the record carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his case has submitted affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated averments in the complaint. Further, he produced the documents Ex. Ex.C1 bill of mobile, Ex.C2 Job card.
7. On the other hand, op no.3 furnished Ex.R1 affidavit of Anup Kumar Mathur C/o Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon, warranty terms and conditions Ex.R1and Ex.R2.
8. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased a mobile handset Make Samsung Mobile Phone Model: Galaxy A7(6) Colour Black from op no.1 and the op no.1 charged an amount of Rs.14,500/- and issued the bill No.683 dated 12.03.2018. As per allegations of the complainant, there was major defects in the display which started blinking and the brightness became low. The complainant approached the ops and requested to replace the mobile set on 28.12.2018 and submitted to the same in the service center but however, they refused to replace the mobile set. On the other hand, there is specific defence plea of op no.3 that they never refused to replace the display but however, the complainant was adamant for the replacement of the mobile set with the new one. There is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set.
9. The perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that the complainant has placed on record the bill as Ex.C1, job card as Ex.C2. The complainant has not led any evidence that there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile set. It is settled principle of law that no order for replacement of a product can be passed until and unless there is a manufacturing defect in the product. No doubt it is the legal obligation of the ops no.2 and 3 to provide service to the complainant for their product during the period of warranty since this mobile was purchased on 12.03.2018 and it was within warranty when complainant faced problem of blinking of display of mobile.
10. In view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint with the direction to ops no.2 and 3 to carry out the necessary repairs in the mobile set without any cost and to make the same defect free within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the mobile set is in the possession of the complainant then he will hand over the same to the ops for necessary repairing within 7 days. They are further directed that in case it is found that the mobile set is not repairable then they are liable to replace the same with new one on depositing of 50% cost of the mobile from the complainant (being depreciation charges). We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum: President,
Dated: 18.07.2019 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
