BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.116/15.
Date of instt.: 08.06.2015.
Date of Decision: 05.01.2016.
Sanjeev Kumar son of Pritam Singh r/o Siwan, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Bharti International G-2, Ground Floor, Padma City Mall, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
2. Authorized Samsung Service Centre Bharti Communications, 117, Lala Lajpat Rai Shopping Kaithal, presently at First Floor, Padma City Mall, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
3. Samsung India Electronics, Pvt. Ltd. B-1, Sector-81, Phase-II, Noida District Gautam Budh Nagar (UP).
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Satish Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased one mobile set Marka Samsung Company on 18.11.2014, Model No.Sam-i9060 bearing IMEI No.RZ1F22K5LQU (352742061410099) from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.12,500/- vide bill No.1127 dt. 18.11.2014 against the warranty of one year. It is alleged that on 02.06.2015, the said mobile phone occurred a problem i.e. vibrator not working, speaker volume not O.K. and hang problem. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.2 on the asking of Op No.1 on 02.06.2015 but the Op No.2 refused to repair the above-said mobile with the remarks “liquid set” (PBA+LCD Liquid). This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts; that the complainant in regards to his complaint approached the service-centre of Op No.2 at Kaithal only once on 02.06.2015 vide complaint No.8459254942 and the Engineer thoroughly checked the unit and found liquid logged, hence, the engineer told the complainant that the unit is barred by warranty condition being liquid logged and estimate was given to the complainant but the complainant refused to approve the estimate given by Op No.2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark-A to Mark-C and closed evidence on 29.10.2015. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.Op2, Op3 and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed evidence on 18.11.2015.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that as per pleadings, the complainant purchased one mobile set Marka Samsung Company on 18.11.2014, Model No.Sam-i9060 bearing IMEI No.RZ1F22K5LQU (352742061410099) from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.12,500/- vide bill No.1127 dt. 18.11.2014 against the warranty of one year. On 02.06.2015, the said mobile phone occurred a problem i.e. vibrator not working, speaker volume not O.K. and hang problem. The complainant approached the Op No.2 on 02.06.2015 but the Op No.2 refused to repair the above-said mobile with the remarks “liquid set” (PBA+LCD Liquid). On the other hand, the Ops contended that the complainant approached the service-centre of Op No.2 at Kaithal only once on 02.06.2015 vide complaint No.8459254942 and the Engineer thoroughly checked the unit and found liquid logged, hence, the engineer told the complainant that the unit is barred by warranty condition being liquid logged.
6. From the pleadings and documents placed on the file, we found that the complainant purchased one mobile set Marka Samsung Company on 18.11.2014, Model No.Sam-i9060 from Op No.1 for sum of Rs.12,500/- vide bill No.1127 dt. 18.11.2014. The said mobile set occurred a problem on 02.06.2015. The complainant approached the Ops several times regarding repair of said mobile set but the Ops did not do so. The complainant has also placed on file affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill, Mark-A, copy of acknowledgement of service request, Mark-B and copy of acknowledgment of service request, Mark-C. In the copy of acknowledgement of service request, Mark-B in the column of defect description, the problems in the mobile set have been shown that vibrator not work+speaker volume not O.K.+hang and the same defects have also been shown in the copy of acknowledgement of service request, Mark-C. On the other hand, the engineer who checked the said mobile and found liquid logged but the Ops have not filed the affidavit of said engineer. So, we found no force in the contention of ld. Counsel for the Ops. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide bill No.1127 dt. 18.11.2014. However, it is made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.12,500/- as the cost of mobile to the complainant. No order as to costs. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.05.01.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
