Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/55/2017

Vikram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Binny Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

In person

16 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :     55 of 2017

Date of Institution                             :    01.12.2017

Date of Decision:                    :     16.04.2018

Vikram son of Sh.Darshan Lal Resident of Village Thathiala Bet, PO Garlo Bet, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. Binny Telecom, Tikka Market , Gahoon Road, Balachaur, District SBS Nagar, through it owner.
2. Samsung Service Center, Heera Jattan Mohalla, Nawanshahr through its MD/Manager.
3. Samsung Electronics India Pvt Ltd, (H.O.), 20^th, to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector -43, DLF PH-V, Gurugram, Haryana 122202 through its MD/Director.

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.A.P.S. RAJPURT, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

For complainant                      :         In person.

For OP No.1                           :         Ex parte.

For OP No.2&3                       :         Sh.B.P.S. Panesar, Advocate

 

ORDER

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

       Complainant filed present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by alleging that he purchased mobile make Samsung J-7, for Rs.10500/- vide bill No.402 dated 11.04.2017 from OP-1 which was manufactured by OP No.3.  It is assured by OPs that phone belongs to good brand, running good and in face of any problem, phone will be returned and payment will be refunded.  After lapse of about two months of its purchase, it was started to give problem of charging, for which complainant told to OP No.1, who asked to submit the mobile with OP No.2.  Complainant has submitted his phone with Op No.2 who was authorized service centre of OP No.3, after lapse of three days and after set it right the OP No.2 has returned the phone.  That after lapse of one month, said phone was again started to give same problem, for which complainant again submitted phone with OP No.2 and then Op No.2 has returned the phone after lapse of about two days and after set right the phone.  That after about one month, said phone was again started to give same problem for which complainant again submitted phone with OP No.2, and then again OP No.2 has returned the phone after set it right.  Now the said phone again started to give same problem and complainant has submitted the phone with Op No.2.  In this way, said phone become faulty for four times within seven months of its purchase.  The OPs have violated the law of Consumer Protection Act as OP No.3 has manufactured bad quality phone and OP No.2 has provided deficient services and Op No.1 sold bad quality phone and complainant has been harassed financial and mentally.  Lastly prayer has been made for replacement of mobile in question with new one and also claimed Rs.65,000/- as compensation for financial and mental agony and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       Upon notice, OP No.1 has  failed to appeared and ultimately proceeded against ex parte.  OP No.3 has filed written statement and vide order dated 29.01.2018, the said written statement be taken on record on behalf of OP No.2&3.  The answering OPs have taken preliminary objection that complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich him at the cost of answering OP by filing frivolous claim.  Till that handset has been submitted with authorized service centre OP-2 only on 08.09.2017 since its purchase, with alleged problem of charging.  OP-2 inspected the handset and rectified the problem by changing the connector & data cable and handset was delivered back to complainant in OK condition.  Thereafter complainant has never submitted his handset for any kind of repair with OP No.2 till date.  There is no consumer dispute between complainant and answering OP.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief as he has concealed the material and true facts from the this Forum.  The handset in question has been alleged to be purchased on 11.04.2017.  There is no deficiency of service or breach of contract on the part of answering OP. The answering OP or its service centre has never denied after sales services and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant as per warranty terms and conditions.  There is no inherent defect in the mobile nor there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  In this case, the hand set is not being properly handled but complainant has intentionally not disclosed the true facts before this Forum.  Answering OP through this reply requested this Forum to get the handset checked from an independent expert and seek an expert opinion regarding the exact condition of the handset as required under law.  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 i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central approved laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law.  The complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention to take benefit of his own wrongs and to extract money from answering OP by dragging in unwanted litigation.  Without admitting that there is any defect in the product in question and without prejudice, it is submitted that even if the allegations of the complainant is taken as gospel truth, the defect if any can be rectified by repair work, no direction for refund of cost of product can be issued.  On merits, each and every averments of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.    

4.       On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence his self declaration Ex.CW-1 alongwith photocopies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence.  Learned counsel for OPs No.2&3 has tendered affidavit of Anindya Bose Ex.OP2/A, photocopy warranty card Ex.OP2/1 and then closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and OP No.2&3 and have also gone through the record carefully.

6.       Complainant has argued that he purchased mobile make Samsung J-7, for Rs.10500/- vide bill No.402 dated 11.04.2017 from OP-1 which was manufactured by OP No.3.  It is assured by OPs that phone belongs to good brand, running good and in face of any problem, phone will be returned and payment will be refunded.  After lapse of about two months of its purchase, it was started to give problem of charging, for which complainant told to OP No.1, who asked to submit the mobile with OP No.2.  Complainant has submitted his phone with Op No.2 who was authorized service centre of OP No.3, after lapse of three days and after set it right the OP No.2 has returned the phone.  Now the said phone again and again started to give same problem and complainant has submitted the phone with Op No.2.  In this way, said phone become faulty for four times within seven months of its purchase.  OP No.3 has manufactured bad quality phone and OP No.2 has provided deficient services and Op No.1 sold bad quality phone and complainant has been harassed financial and mentally and prayed for relief claim.

7.       On the other hand, counsel for Op No.2&3 has argued that handset has been submitted with authorized service centre OP-2 only on 08.09.2017 since its purchase, with alleged problem of charging.  OP-2 inspected the handset and rectified the problem by changing the connector & data cable and handset was delivered back to complainant in OK condition.  Thereafter complainant has never submitted his handset for any kind of repair with OP No.2 till date.  There is no consumer dispute between complainant and answering OP.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief as he has concealed the material and true facts from the this Forum.  The answering OP-3 or its service centre has never denied after sales services and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant as per warranty terms and conditions.  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 i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central approved laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law.  The defect if any can be rectified by repair work and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.       We found that in para No.5 of the written statement filed by OP No.3, counsel for OP No.2&3 argued that complainant neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert.

          Counsel for OPs No.2&3 further argued that complainant has purchased the mobile set in question on 11.04.2017 and as per Ex.C-2 dated 08.09.2017 problem caused in the mobile set after five month of its purchase, the problem has caused and the same rectified.  No other job sheet or no ex pert report produced on record by the complainant. In the light of judgment Dr.Hema Vasantilal Dakoria Vs Bajaj Auto Ltd & Ors reported at II (2005) CPJ 102 (NC), which has clearly laid down that: “As per settled position of law that if a part could be replaced or a defect could be removed then replacement cannot be ordered”.

          So the mobile set in question could not be replaced.           

10.     Resultantly, in view of the above discussions, the present complaint of complainant is partly allowed with directions to OP No.2&3 to repair the mobile set in question of complainant free of cost and make the said mobile set defect free to the satisfaction of complainant.  Further, complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,000/- which shall be paid by OP No.2&3.             

9.       Entire compliance be made by the OP No.2&3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

10.     Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

11.     File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Dated:  16.04.2018

 

  

(Kanwaljeet Singh)       (A.P.S. Rajput)

Member                         President