Haryana

Kurukshetra

39/2018

Sushil Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bala Ji Comm - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Sharma

18 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,KURUKSHETRA.

                                        Complaint Case No.39 of 2018.

                                        Date of institution: 20.02.2018.

                                        Date of decision: 18.03.2019

 

 

Sushil Pal son of Sham Sunder, resident of 531/16, Railway Road, New Colony, Thanesar, Kurukshetra.

                                                                …Complainant.

                        Versus

 

1.     Bala Ji Communication, Gita Colony, Gita School, Thanesar, Kurukshetra.

2.     Bansal Communications and Service Centre, Near Geeta Dwar Main Road, Pipli Chowk, Kurukshetra an authorized Samsung Service Center.

3.     Head Office Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122202, through authorized signatory.

 

….Opposite parties.

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Tirkha, Member.

 

Present:     Sh.Amit Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                OP No.1 ex-parte.

Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3.

               

(ORDER)

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sushil Pal against the Bala Ji Communication & others, the opposite parties.

2.             Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy J210 mobile model play Galaxy J210, vide invoice No.3086 dated 2.9.2016 for a sum of Rs.9800/- from OP No.1.  At the time of purchasing the said mobile, the OPs No.1 & 3 assured him that the said mobile is of best quality and genuine one and would not give any kind of trouble and also assured to provide best services during the warranty period of the said mobile but from the very beginning, the said mobile started hanging and giving problems of low battery, self switched off, low clarity of sound, no proper touch use, Center key problem etc. As such it is not working well from the very beginning. It is further averred that after 20 days from purchasing, complainant went to the office of Op No.1 and requested to remove the said problems and OP kept it for repairing and returned back it by giving assurance to give best services but all in vain and after some times, same problems again occurred and the OP once again kept it for repairing and returned back after one month by giving assurance to give best services and all in vain again. It is further averred that same problems again occurred and the Op did not pay any heed to the requests of complainant and postponed the matter on one pretext or the other.  He further alleged that the said mobile phone is totally out of order and op no.2 told the complainant that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile which cannot be removed. That thereafter complainant approached the ops and requested to replace the said mobile with a new one as the same is within warrantee period but ops flatly refused to do so.  Hence, this complaint.

 

2.             On notice, op no.1 failed to appear and was proceeded against exparte.

3.             Opposite parties no.2 and 3 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that model name of mobile Galaxy 3210 and bill No.3062 mentioned in the complaint do not match with the photocopy of bill. It is further submitted that true facts of the case are that complainant approached to the company on 12.8.2017 i.e. after approximate more than 11 months i.e. just before the expiry of warrantee period of one year of unit. The alleged unit was working fine till 12.8.2017 and on that occasion, complainant reported some problem in his unit. The engineer of the company checked the unit in the presence of complainant and found that the unit is damaged due to liquid logging due to negligence/ mishandling on part of complainant. The engineer told the complainant that the unit cannot be considered under warrantee as the company provides one year standard warrantee and same is subject to some conditions and one of the condition is that if the unit got liquid damaged, the warrantee becomes void and the repair of the unit in that case automatically attracts charges/ paid repair and the repair of the unit shall be on chargeable basis and the estimate of repair was given to the complainant. But the complainant did not agree to get his unit repaired and continued to become adamant for replacement. After that the complainant never approached to the answering ops and without any cause of action directly filed the present complaint. It is also submitted that the op company were and are always ready to provide services to complainant as per conditions of warrantee i.e. paid repair. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.

4.             The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             In so far as objection of ops no.2 and 3 regarding mentioning of different model number and bill number in the complaint is concerned, it may be mentioned here that complainant moved an application for amendment on the ground that due to clerical/ typographical mistake, the complainant wrongly mentioned the invoice number as 3062 instead of 3086 and model name Galaxy 3210 instead of Galaxy J210 and that application was allowed and as such amended complaint was filed by complainant.

7.             There is no dispute that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 on 2.9.2016 for a sum of Rs.9800/- and this fact is evident from copy of invoice Ex.C1. The complainant has alleged that from the very beginning said mobile started giving various problems and the ops have failed to make the mobile in question defect free despite repairs and that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile. The ops no.2 and 3 have taken a plea that their engineer found that the unit is damaged due to liquid logging but the ops have not placed on file any report of engineer in this regard and have simply placed on record copy of warrantee card and service request. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed. In this regard reliance can be placed on the observations of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled as M/s Sony India Private Ltd. vs. Anil Kumar etc. FA No.314 of 2014 decided on 22.9.2014.

8.             Thus, in  view of above, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to immediately repair the mobile phone of complainant, free of cost, by repairing/ replacing the necessary part(s), if any. If the mobile is beyond repair, then the ops shall either replace the mobile with a new one of same make and model or in the alternate shall refund the invoice price thereof i.e. Rs.9800/- to the complainant. The ops are liable to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the above said amount from the date of order till actual realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:18.03.2019.                                           (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                     President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.