BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; BHIWANI.

Complaint No.124 of 2017.

Date of Instt.:25.09.2017.

Date of Decision: 16.01.2020

Mohan Singh son of Sattan Singh resident of village Kharak Kalan Tehsil & District Bhiwani

...Complainant

     Versus

1.Jai Bhawani Telecom village Kharak Kalan Tehsil & District Bhiwani through its proprietor.

2.Samsung India Limited A-25, Ground Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial State, New Delhi-110044 through Manager.

3. Samsung Service Centre, Dinod Gate, Bhiwani Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

...Opposite Parties.

Before:         Sh. Nagender Singh, President.

                     Sh. Shriniwas Khundia, Member

Present:        Sh.Kuldeep Vashisth, Advocate for complainant.

                     None for opposite party No.1 (defence struck off).

                    Sh.R.K.Verma, Advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3.                 

ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    In brief, the Complainant had purchased Samsung mobile from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.7600/- vide bill No.1616 dated 10.11.2016.  Handset was having a full warranty of one year but the mobile handset went out of order within 20 days of its purchase as its battery starting dead. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 who asked to visit the service centre, therefore, the complainant visited  service centre i.e. opposite party No.3 and got deposited the handset vide job sheet No.4226777224. The complainant visited the opposite party No.3 after 2-3 days but the mechanic refused to repair the phone as it was burnt due to manufacturing defect and also asked for sending the same to opposite party No.2 for replacement. The complainant kept on visiting the service centre the opposite parties refused to change and repair the phone free of cost and the opposite party No.2 demanded Rs.3557/- for getting the phone repaired. The complainant requested the opposite parties either to to refund the cost of the mobile or to repair the phone but to no avail. Hence this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

2.                  In response to the notice, the opposite parties appeared. The opposite party No.1 failed to file the written statement within stipulated period despite availing ample opportunities, therefore, right to file the written statement was struck off on 18.12.2019.

3.                  Opposite parties no.2 & 3 contested the complaint by filing its joint reply wherein it has taken many preliminary. It has been further submitted that manufacturing defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter submissions and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same.  The complainant has made false story and false allegations without any proof to grab unlawful benefits for his unit which was damaged due to burns because of mishandling on the part of the complainant.  The Samsung company is a renowned company in electronic products  and the technology used by the replying opposite parties in manufacturing the product is highly sophisticated and world class. The complainant had approached the service centre on 06.12.2016 with a dead handset and with certain issue in the battery of his unit. The official of the service centre informed the complainant that due to this the warranty is barred. It has been further submitted that the replying opposite parties were/are ready to repair the handset as per warranty policy but the complainant is not ready to get the same repaired.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the replying opposite parties. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                  The complainant has tendered in evidence Affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C10 and closed the evidence on 15.10.2018. On the other hand, the opposite parties No.2 & 3 tendered and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4 and closed the evidence on 22.10.2019.

4.                  It is not disputed that complainant had purchased a mobile handset in question from opposite party No.1 on 10.11.2016 as is evident through Annexure C1. This fact is also not disputed that mobile set went out of order on 06.12.2016 during period of warranty as shown in Annexure C2. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties neither repaired the set nor replaced the same with new one nor refunded the cost thereof despite the fact that the phone is still lying with the opposite parties No.2 & 3. The complainant has purchased the handset on 10.11.2016 and he visited the service centre on 06.12.2016 and got deposited the handset with service centre, which is still lying there, within 27 days of its purchase. Though the learned counsel for the appearing opposite parties has argued that there is no manufacturing defect in the set and the warranty of the handset is barred as it was in condition due to mishandling by the complainant. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that there is no manufacturing defect in the set is not tenable because it is misconceived notion that any goods can be ordered to be replaced or the cost can be ordered to be refunded only if it suffers from manufacturing because  there is no such concept of goods suffering from manufacturing defect enshrined by the provision of Consumer Protection Act.  Consumer Protection Act only defines the word ‘defect’ by way of Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act which is to the following effect:

“Defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.”

 In the present case Annexure C2/job sheets issued by the service centre clearly show that there is defect in the unit and the opposite parties have failed to produce any evidence on the case file that the defect was occurred in the unit and the same got burnt due to mishandling by the complainant.  On one hand the appearing opposite parties claimed that it is a renowned company and used world class and sophisticated technology in manufacturing of the product but then phone got burnt within 27 days of its purchase then it put a question about the quality of the handset. It is clearly established that the appearing opposite parties are deficient in providing service and have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant as per his satisfaction. There is enough on the record that the set in question went out of order within warranty period and the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of the appearing opposite parties as they failed to remove the defect in the mobile during the warranty period. Since there is no specific allegations against the opposite party No.1 and even it has no role to play in the dispute, therefore, complaint against opposite party No.1 stands rejected.

5.                  Thus, as sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties No.2 & 3 to refund Rs.7600/-  as cost of the handset alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint tills its realization. We also direct the opposite parties No.2 & 3 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment including litigation expenses.  The mobile is already with the service centre. Order of this Forum be complied within a period of 30 days.  Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: - 16.01.2020

                               (Shriniwas Khundia)             (Nagender Singh)

                              Member                                      President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                        Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.