DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
Complaint No. : 167
Date of Institution: 18.05.2017
Date of Decision : 26.09.2017
Pooja Bansal W/o Sh. Pardeep Garg S/o Sh. Hemraj Garg Near Ram Leela Ground C/o Garg Ply and Glass House Jaitu Tehsil Jaitu District Faridkot.
...Complainant
Versus
- Bansal Enterprises (Samsung Mobile Phone Retailer) Opposite Bus Stand Jaitu through its Partner/Prop.
- Samsung Mobile Authorized Service Centre Baba Farid Opposite Police Station Kotwali Faridkot.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044
.....Opposite Parties (Ops)
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Sh. Purshotam Singla, Member.
Present: Sh. A.K. Monga, Ld Counsel for complainant
OP-1 Exparte
Sh. Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-2 & 3.
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs for directing the OPs to replace the defective mobile handset and further directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and Rs 10,000/-as litigation expenses.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a mobile hand set Make Samsung C-9 Pro, Colour Gold, IMEI No.35636808101087/9 worth Rs.36,900/- vide bill no.3446 dated 08.03.2017 from the OP-1 which is manufactured by OP-3. At the time of purchase OPs assured that in case of any defect in hand set it will be repaired/replaced immediately without any excuse or delay. In the last week of March 2017 the mobile handset had started malfunctioning. The complainant was unable to make or receive calls from the handset and the screen of the handset often went off. Thereafter, the handset completely stops the functioning. The complainant approached the Op-1 and requested to repair or replace the handset as it was not in working condition. OP-1 asked the complainant to approach OP-2 who is authorized service centre of Samsung Company. On 04.04.2017, the complainant through his brother Munish Bansal approached to OP-2 and requested them to get the hand set repaired/replaced. The representative of OP-2 received the hand set and assured that there is no major defect in the hand set and they receive the handset and instructed the brother of the complainant to collect the same on 09.04.2017 and also issued a slip regarding the receipt of the hand set. On 07.04.2017 the brother of complainant approached the OP-3 on their toll free number and explained the matter and condition of the hand set. On 09.04.2017 when brother of the complainant approached to OP-2 to collect the hand set as directed by them, the representative of OP-2 demanded a sum of Rs.24,000/- as repair charges and told that the hand set will be repaired only after payment of Rs.24,000/- in advance. The brother of the complainant asked the OP-2 to give the said demand in writing for which OP-2 refused and slashed the amount to Rs.16,500/- and wrote down this figure on plan slip. When the complainant showed his inability to pay the said amount of Rs.16,500/-. The OP-2 refuses to repair/replace the handset and returned the same. Thereafter, the complainant approached OPs many times with request them to replace the hand set but they refused to admit the lawful claim of the complainant. OPs are liable to repair/replace the hand set in question during the warranty period. The acts of the OPs for not repair or replace the hand set in question within warranty period which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The act and conduct of the Ops for not repairing the mobile or replacing the same caused to great mental tension, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant. Complainant prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief.
3 The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 19.05.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.
4. Notice sent to the OP-1 through registered post. RC containing copy and summons were sent to OP-1 and same has not been received back undelivered, so for as per office report. Otherwise period of 30 days has elapsed. Acknowledgment must have been mis-laid or lost in the transit. Therefore, OP-1 is proceeded against exparte on 13.07.2017.
5. On receipt of the notice, OP-2 & 3 appeared through Counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the present complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich him at the cost of answering respondent by filing frivolous claim and deserves dismissal on this ground alone. There is no breach of warranty terms and conditions as the hand set has been found "liquid Damage" due to which internal parts of the handset were damaged and handset was not working. Liquid damage is warranty void condition, due to breach of warranty the repair is to be done on chargeable basis and complainant refused to pay for repair charges. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and he has concealed the true and material facts. He has not come before this Forum with clean hands. The mobile handset has been physically mishandled as it was found "Liquid Damaged". The handset in question has been submitted with OP-2 on 06.04.2017 with problem of "Display Blank, on internal inspection the handset by OP-2 it was found " Liquid Damaged" due to which PBA Board of the handset was damaged leading to dead handset/display blank. There is no inherent defect in the handset and rather it has been physically mishandled by the complainant leading to ingress of liquid. Due to physical mishandling and liquid damage caused to the handset it was not covered under warranty and the repair was to be done on chargeable basis. The estimate of repair was not approved by complainant. Hence, the hand set was not repaired and was returned to complainant. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging totally false facts and concealed the true facts regarding the damaged condition of his handset, caused due to her own negligence. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence or expert evidence. The replacement or refund is only permissible where defect developed during the period of warranty is of such a nature that it cannot be cured or repaired. If any defect developed after the lapse of warranty or defect due to liquid ingress the answering OPs is not responsible for the same. The answering Respondent or its Service Centre has never denied after sales services to the complainant and they are still ready to provide service to complainant as per warranty terms and conditions on chargeable basis. The complainant filed the present complaint with malafide intention only to damage the reputation of the Ops. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent. The present complaint deserves to be dismissal.
7 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents as Ex C-2 to C-5 and then closed his evidence.
8 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, OP-2 & 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager as Ex OP-2 & 3/1 and then, closed the evidence.
9 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. The case of the complainant is that on 08.03.2017 she purchased a mobile handset Make Samsung C-9 Pro, from OP-1 which was manufactured by OP-3 against duly issued bill and the copy of the bill Ex C-2. In the last week of March 2017 the mobile had started mal functioning and complainant was unable to make or receive calls. The screen of the handset often went off and handset completely stops the functioning. On it she approached to OP-1 and on his instructions she approached to OP-2 who is authorized service centre through his brother, on 04.04.2017 the OP-2 received the handset for repair and instructed to collect the hand set on 09.04.2017 after repair. When on 09.04.2017 she approached to OP-2 to collect the hand set after repair, the OP-2 demanded Rs.24,000/- as repair charges and told that hand set will be repaired only on the payment of Rs.24,000/- in advance. When the complainant showed his inability to pay this amount Ops refused to repair or replace the hand set and returned the same to the brother of the complainant. The complainant approached to OPs with request to repair/replace the hand set as the same is within warranty period but they refused to admit his claim which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
On the other hand, OP-2 & 3 admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from OP-1 on 08.03.2017 as alleged by her. They further admitted that there was one year warranty against any manufacturing defect on this hand set. On 04.04.2017 complainant approached to them with a complaint of defect in the mobile hand set, they argued that on the complaint of complainant they checked and inspected the hand set and in checking it was found that the hand set "liquid damage" and due to which internal part of the hand set were damaged and hand set was not working. The liquid damage is warranty void condition, due to breach of warranty the repair is to be done on chargeable basis and complainant refused to pay for repair charges. Now it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant purchase the mobile hand set in question from OP-1 which is manufactured by OP-3 there was one year warranty on the said hand set. It is further admitted that during the warranty period on 04.04.2017 the complainant approached to OP-2 who is authorized Service Centre of the company with complaint of defect in the hand set. The version of the OP-2 & 3 is that on inspection it is found that the hand set is mishandled by the complainant herself and it was liquid damage due to which the internal part of the hand set was damaged which is violation of warranty condition and it can be repaired only chargeable basis and not free of cost under warrant condition. But OPs failed to prove that the fault caused in the hand set due to mishandling of the hand set, even they have failed to produce any inspection report or job sheet prepared by them at the time of inspection of the mobile set to prove their allegations that the hand set was liquid damage. Moreover admittedly the hand set purchased on 08.03.2017 and it stop working in the end of March 2017, the complainant approach to OP-2 on 04.04.2017 i.e. less than a month from the purchase, the defect arose within that much short span itself prove that there was manufacturing defect in the hand set. As per warranty condition, the Ops were liable to repair or replace the hand set within warranty period but OPs failed to fulfil their part and did not redress the grievance of the complainant and fail to set right the mobile hand set in question which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP-2 & 3 which are manufacturer and authorized service centre.
10. In the light of above discussion, the complaint in hand is allowed against OP-2 & 3 and dismissed against OP-1 who is only reseller and all guarantees and warranties is given on the product by a manufacturer i.e. OP- 2 & 3. The OP-2 & 3 are directed to replace the mobile set in question with a new mobile hand set of same make and model within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. OP-2 & 3 are further directed to pay consolidated compensation on account of harassment as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. OPs directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum:
Dated: 26.09.2017
Member President
(Purshotam Singla) (Ajit Aggarwal)
