Haryana

Ambala

CC/389/2016

Anubhav Goswami - Complainant(s)

Versus

E World - Opp.Party(s)

Ashutosh Aggarwal

04 Jan 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 389 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         : 21.10.2016

                                                          Date of decision   : 04.01.2018

 

Anubhav Goswami, S/o Sh. Avinash Goswami, R/o H.No.142/8, Vihar, Ambala Vity.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       E-World, 434 Prem Nagar, Ambala City through its Prop.

2.       Telus Global Vertified Solutions, 374A adjoining Gurudwara, Prem Nagar, Ambala City through its Prop.

3.       Samsung Mobiles Head Office Address: 2^nd & 3^rd 4^th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Old Golf Road, Gurgaon, Sector-43.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.                           

 

 

Present:       Sh.Ashish Sareen, counsel for the complainant.

OP No.1 given up v.o.d. 07.04.2017.

Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that complainant had purchased a mobile phone make Samsung bearing IMEI No.352837070346332, Model No. Galaxy Note 5, from OP No.1 on 24.10.2015 by paying a sum of Rs.49,000/- with one year guarantee. On 14.12.2015 in the morning when the complainant has removed the charger and started making call, suddenly the display disappears. Then after few minutes the complainant restart the mobile phone, after doing the same the problem of display has resolved. On 01.07.2016 again the same problem occurs in the above said mobile phone but the same was rectified after adopting the same procedure  as have adopted earlier. On 30.07.2015 a small black spot appear on the upper left side of screen of the said cell phone and the same is enhancing till date. The complainant immediately approached the OP No.2 i.e. service center of op no.3 they issue job card and registered complainant vide no.4219533870. That on 13.08.2016 the complainant received a message on his cell phone from OP No.3 customer stating therein that the set is repaired and ready for delivery. When complainant approached OP No.2 for taking delivery of the set in question he was shocked  to hear from the engineer of OP No.2, that the set in question is physically damaged and hence it is out of warranty and handed over the same to complainant. Thereafter, the complainant communicates with the same on customer support of OP No.3 which was duly replied and stating that the complaint of complainant was registered vide complaint no. 8463783569. On 07.09.2016 the complainant sent a notice for rectification of said problem with in warranty period to OP No.1, 2 & 3 but all in vain.

2.                Upon notice, OPs 2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement submitting that the complainant has approached to the Service Centre of the company vide complaint on 4214918920 on 28.05.2016 and the unit of the complainant was thoroughly checked by the engineers of the company in presence of the complainant and no major issue was found and only software of the unit was required to be updated and the unit of complainant become completely OK. After that the complainant again approached the service centre of the company on dated 13.08.2016 vide complaint no. 4219533870 reported some problem in his unit. The engineer of the service centre thoroughly checked the unit in the presence of complainant and found that the display of the unit was broken /damaged. The engineer told to the complainant that the warranty of the unit is barred due to the same effect and the repair of the unit shall be on chargeable basis. The complainant did not approve the estimate of repair and denied for repair and took the delivery of the unit. The company provides warranty of one year but the warranty of the unit (warranty means only repair not replacement) is subject to some conditions and the warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions:-

1.       Liquid Logged/water logging.

2.       Physically damage.

3.       Serial no. Missing.

4.       Tampering

5.       Mishandling/Burnt etc.

 

 OP No. 1 give up vide order dated 07.04.2017. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2  & 3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X with documents as annexure C-1 to C-12 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A with documents as annexure R-1 to Annexure   R-5 and closed their  evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                It is not disputed the complainant had purchased  mobile in question for amounting Rs. 49,000/- as per the invoice   dated 24.10.2015 Annexure C-1. It is also not disputed the mobile in question has been become defective within warranty period. The complainant approached to the OP No.2 for rectification of the mobile in question sent the complaint to the OPs  No. 2 & 3 and service centre/OP No.2 has issued job card as Annexure R-2 dated 13.08.2016 and they have mentioned problem in the job card as under:- “OCTA FAULT –TBC” and it is also mentioned in the job sheet “OCTA estimate given to the customer refused to repair” and the OP No.2/Service Centre gave the estimate of Rs. 9493.78/- for repairing charges of the defective  part as mentioned in the Job Sheet i.e. SVC LCD ASSY-OCTA(E/GOLD), SM-N920 and TAPE DOUBLE FACE BACK GLASS(GH02-10922A) but complainant refused to get the same repaired on payment basis. The OP No.2 has come to this plea that the warranty become void as the mobile in question was physically damage which occurred due to fault of the customer, so the complainant has to bear the estimated cost for repairing.  We have also perused the photographs of the mobile in question which have been placed on the case file   as Annexure R-4 but the same does not depict that the mobile in question is in physically damaged condition. The job sheet as well as the photographs have tendered/issued by the OPs but both these documents are contrary to each other. The complainant had purchased the mobile in question after spending huge amount Rs. 49,000/- and mobile in question become defective within warranty period and the OPs have failed to rectify the defect in the same rather the act and conduct of the OPs shows that in order to avoid their liability they have taken the plea qua physically damaged of the mobile without leading, cogent and credible evidence. In the present case the complainant has neither been satisfied with the performance of the mobile nor with after the sale service of the OPs. The Op No.1 has been given up during the pendency of the complaint, therefore, no relief/order order can be passed against him.    

 6.               In view of above discussion, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice if  we order the  OPs  No.2 & 3  to rectify the problem mentioned in the job sheet without charging any amount from the complainant. It is ordered accordingly. Hence, the present complaint is disposed off with no  order to cost.  Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 04.01.2018                

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                  

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)            (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)            (D.N. ARORA)

   Member                                             Member                                          President