Haryana

Panchkula

CC/222/2015

JITENDER KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANSAL ELECTRONICS &OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

11 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	222 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	12.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	11.02.2016

                                                                                            

Jitender Kumar s/o Sh.Birbal Sharma, R/o House No.119, Near Sanatan Dharm Mandir, Harmilap Nagar, Baltana, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Bansal Electronics, SCO No.21, Sector-11, Panchkula through its authorized signatory/prop/partner.
2. Manager, Samsung Service Centre, SCO No.215, Sector-14, Panchkula.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, B-I, Sector-81, Phase 2, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh through its authorized signatory.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

              OP No.1 already ex-parte. 

              Mr.Puneet Tuli, Adv., for the Ops No.2 and 3.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that the complainant purchased a Samsung Mobile handset Model Grand-2 bearing IMEI No.352116/06/486353/1* and 352117/06/486353/9* on 05.06.2014 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- vide bill No.37370 with a warranty of one year. At the time of purchase, the salesman of Op No.1 assured the complainant that the set was all right and it would work effectively. But after passing six months, the handset started hanging. The complainant contacted the OP No.1 who told him that the problem would automatically remove with the passage of time after using the handset. On 03.10.2015, the play store of the handset was not working. The complainant contacted the Op No.1  who told him that the handset was out of warranty and advised him to approach the Ops No.2 i.e. service center. On 03.10.2015, the complainant approached the Op No.2 and the officials of Op No.2 after taking the mobile, issued a job sheet and directed him to come after 1 hour for taking the delivery of the handset and also told the cost of the repair as Rs.230/-. In the evening, the complainant visited the office of Op No.2 and paid the repair cost as Rs.230/-. The official of Op No.2 told the complainant that the handset was free from all defects. After taking the delivery, the complainant checked the handset and was surprised to see that the handset started giving more problem as connection error, camera of the phone was not working, sound problem and even the handset was hanging badly. The complainant brought the said defect in the notice of Op No.2 who told that the hardware of the handset was damaged and the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.6690/- otherwise the handset of the complainant would not be repaired. The complainant told the officials of Op No.2 that the handset was damaged by them while repairing and they were duty bound to repair the handset but they refused to repair the handset without payment. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Op No.1 through registered post but none has appeared on behalf of the OP No.1. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.12.2015.
3. In reply, the Ops No.2 and 3 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that handset of the complainant was out of warranty as the same was purchased on 05.06.2014 and carried a warranty of one year. It is submitted that in the month of October, 2015, for the very first time, the complainant brought the handset for repair. It is submitted that the complainant made a complaint in hanging & play store was not functioning and the software was updated with the latest software. It is submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile set. It is submitted that the Ops have never refused to carry out any repairs. It is submitted that the complainant has not been brought the handset again after 05.10.2015 for repair. It is submitted that the complainant might bring the same for repair and the same should be checked and the in case any repair was required, the same should be carried out on payment basis. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops No.2 & 3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops No.2 and 3 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R2/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant appearing in person and learned counsel for the Ops No.2 and 3 and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Samsung mobile handset Model Grand-2 on 05.06.2014 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- with a warranty of one year. The grievance of the complainant is that after purchase of six months, the handset was giving problem. He approached the Op No.2 for repair of the mobile on 03.10.2015 vide job sheet Annexure C-2 and got repaired the mobile by paying the amount of Rs.230/- to Op No.2 as the warranty period of the handset was lapsed but after repair of handset, the handset starting giving more problem as connection error, camera of the phone was not working, sound problem and even the handset was hanging badly. The complainant again approached the Op No.2 for repair of mobile who after checking the handset told that the hardware of the handset was damaged and the complainant had to pay Rs.6690/- for repair of mobile. On the other hand, the Ops No.2 and 3 contended that the complainant approached the OP No.2 in the month of October, 2015 for the very first time for repair of mobile after lapsing the warranty period and the handset of the complainant was repaired by updating the software on cost of Rs.230/- and there was no manufacturing defect in the handset. Thereafter, the complainant never approached the Ops for repair of mobile. From the above, it reveals that after lapsing the warranty period, on 03.10.2015, the complainant approached the Ops for repair of the handset. The complainant did not place on record any job sheet to show that the handset was giving problem in warranty period. Moreover, the complainant has also failed to place on record any expert opinion to support the plea taken by him that the handset did not work properly after its repair by the Op No.2. As per Annexure C-3, the complainant was asked to get the handset repair after paying the amount of Rs.6690/-. Perusal of the case file reveals that the warranty period of handset was expired, therefore, the complainant cannot force the Ops to repair the handset free of costs. From the material available on the case file, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case by leading authentic and cogent evidence to establish that the Ops had been deficient in providing service to him.
7. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves dismissal and the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

11.02.2016       S.P.ATTRI         ANITA KAPOOR                   DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER          MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                                     DHARAM PAL 

                                                     PRESIDENT