Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/81

Satnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Guru Nanak Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

S. Jaspreet Singh Railon

01 Feb 2019

ORDER

THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                                  Consumer Complaint No. : 81 of 01.10.2018

                                  Date of decision           :    01.02.2019

 

 

Satnam Singh, aged about 21 years, son of Jaspal Singh, resident of Village Samrala, Tehsil & District Rupnagar now residing at Village Chotta Surtapur, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.  

                                                                    ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

1. Guru Nanak Mobile, # BX 2966, Near Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Bela Chowk, Rupnagar through its proprietor  
2. Samsung Service/Customer Care Centre, SCF No.28, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through its Manager/Authorized person.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.

 

                                                                        ....Opposite Parties

 

                    Complaint under Section 12 of the                                               Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

 

                         SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                         CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

 

ARGUED BY

 

 

Sh. Jaspreet Singh Railon, Adv. counsel for complainant 

Sh. Mohit Kumar Dhupar, Adv. counsel for OP No.1 

OP No.2 exparte

Sh.Chetan Kumar Gupta, Adv. counsel for OP No.3

 

 

                                   ORDER

               SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1. Sh. Satnam Singh, son of Jaspal Singh, resident of Village Samrala, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the O.Ps. No.1 to 3 to replace the mobile set with the new one; to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages for harassment; to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation along with interest @12% per annum for the purpose of a mobile set Samsung J-7 Prime with 32 GB, because it want dead within warranty period.  
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that On 28.03.2013, the complainant had purchased a mobile set make Samsung J-7, Prime with 32 GB, vide bill dated 28.03.2018 from the O.P. No.1 for a sum of Rs.14,600/- with one year guarantee. After four five months of its purchase, when the complainant put the phone on the charge, the phone did not get charged and the phone went dead. Thereafter, the complainant approached O.P. No.1 and told him about the said problem who directed him to approach the service centre i.e. OP No.2. The complainant approached OP No.2 and told him about the problem/defect in the mobile set in question.  OP No.2 checked the mobile set for about 2-3 hours and after that OP NO.2 told the complainant that mobile set in question got damaged and it cannot be repaired. Moreover, if the complainant wants to get it repaired or replace any parts of the mobile set then complainant would be charged approximately Rs.6000/-. The complainant told the OP No.2 that mobile set in question was within guarantee, however, the behavior of OP No.2 towards the complainant was rude and told him that your mobile phone will not be repaired or replaced free of cost. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, the O.P. No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering O.P.; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands; that the present complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties. On merits, it is stated that answering O.P. never told the complainant mobile set in question would be replaced in guarantee period free of cost, if any defect would arise in mobile set. Infact the answering O.P. told the complainant that if any defect arises in the mobile set then he will directly approach the service centre of the mobile company. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.     A notice was issued to the OP No.2 but none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.01.2019.

5.     On notice, the OP No.3 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint of the complainant is baseless, devoid of merits; that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the present complaint is without any just or reasonsable basis, an abuse of process of law, misuse of the machinery provided for redressal of genuine grievances; that the complainant has misled this Hon’ble Forum and concealed the material facts of the case. On merits, he stated that alleged defect cannot be determined on the simple submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. The complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault, neither placed on record nor any analysis test report for the perusal of this forum and in the absence of any technical report on record, the complaint of the complainant deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The company provides one year warranty on the unit warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy and the warranty of the unit 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. Mishandlinbg/burnt etc.

 

It is further stated that answering O.P. was and is still ready to provide services to the complainant as per conditions of the warranty i.e. paid repair, but the complainant is adamant to get his unit repaired. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal the complaint. 

  6.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. The proprietor of O.P. No.1 has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the OP No.3 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Tilak Raj, c/o Samsung Service Centre Ex.OP3/A, duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Anup Kumar Mathur, C/o Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited Ex.OP3/B along with documents Ex.OP3/C & Ex.OP3/D and closed the evidence.

7.  We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

8.       Complainant counsel Sh. Jaspreet Singh Railon, argued that after the purchase of Samsung J7 Prime Mobile phone dated 28.3.2018 started giving trouble in functioning i.e. after about 4/5 months of the purchase. On 26.8.2018 the complainant approached the O.P No.1, who advised him approach OP No.2 and on 27.8.2018, the complainant approached OP No.2 but the mobile was not repaired. Rather he demanded Rs.6000/- approximately for the necessary repairs. Job card was issued, when the mobile set is within warranty then why the complainant should bear Rs.6000/-. Lastly he prayed that deficiency on the part of O.Ps. stand established, the complaint be allowed and relief be granted as prayed for with costs.

9.       OP No.1 appeared through Sh. Mohit Kumar Dhupar, Advocate,, who argued that the sale/purchase of the mobile set in question vide receipt dated 26.3.2018 is admitted and OP No.1 is responsible for the genuineness of the product sold by OP No.3. Learned counsel prayed to dismiss the complaint qua the OP No.1.

10.     OP No.3 appeared through Sh.Chetan Kumar Gupta, who argued on the lines of the written reply as well as expert opinion of engineer Sh. Tilak Raj. He also referred the job card Ex.C2 and expert evidence that there is no manufacturing defect, rather the defect is of water logging, which amounts to misuse/mishandling. Lastly prayed that the complainant remain unable in proving deficiency and the complaint be dismissed with costs.

11.     Complainant purchased mobile phone from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3, vide bill dated 26.3.2018 Ex.C1, complainant approached the care centre OP No.2, who issued the job sheet Ex.C2 and reported water logging. So it is a consumer dispute, complaint is maintainable and this forum has the territorial jurisdiction.

12.     Coming to the real fact, whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of the O.Ps. or not. Complainant relief upon the purchase bill Ex.C1 dated 26.3.2018, which is admitted by O.Ps. No.1 & 3. In this way, the sale/purchase/genuineness of the Samsung product is admitted. Then coming to the point of deficiency, complainant relied upon Ex.C2 which is job sheet issued by OP No.2 dated 27.8.2018 and defect reported:-

                                                “Phone Dead”

Ex.C3 gives details of warranty period. To rebut the evidence of complainant, OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Tilak Raj, engineer who in his evidence reported that on inspection the unit and found that the unit is:

          “Liquid logging/that is contact with any type of liquid”    

Beside this expert opinion, OP No.3 relied upon the affidavit of Sh. Anup Kumar Mathur, who supported the reply as well as the clause liquid logged/water logging, which is covered by four defects the details given:

                  1. Physically damage

                  2. Serial No.Missing

                  3. Tampering

4. Mishandling or burnt etc.

                  Then OP No.3 relied upon Ex.OP3/C, which is warranty card and at page No.3 there is details regarding “which of the product are to be considered out of warranty conditions warranty void conditions”. In 4th point detail given that if the defect is of water logging or misuse that is not to be covered within warranty. Rather to declare out of warranty. He then relied upon Ex.OP3/D which is photographs showing water logging. Ex.OP1/A is the affidavit OP NO.1, which is not disputed qua the same.

13.     After appreciating the evidence on file, the forum has come to the conclusion that it was the primary duty of the complainant to prove deficiency either in manufacturing or to the care centre while not repairing. To rebut the evidence of the complainant OP No.3 placed on file adequate evidence through his expert evidence/opinion that the phone was damaged due to water logging. So, the complaint is without merit as the deficiency remain unproved.

14.     In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands dismissed, the parties are left to bear their own cost.

15. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

            

                      ANNOUNCED                                   (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                      Dated.01.02.2019                              PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                                (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                      MEMBER