Punjab

Sangrur

CC/674/2016

Manwar Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jain Watch Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Mohd. Izhar

02 May 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 674                                                                                        

                                                                   Instituted on:   23.11.2016                                                                                   

                                                                  Decided on:    02.05.2017

 

Manwar Ali son of Mohd. Shafi resident of  H.No.474, Madina Basti, Raikot Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.         

                                                        …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     Jain Watch Co. near Multani Chowk, Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its proprietor/ partner.  

2.     Sri Sai Communication, near Railway Road, Opposite E.O. Residence Empire Plaza, First Floor, Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its proprietor/ Manager;                               

3.      Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited 7th and 8th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019, India.

                                                ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT     :      Mohd. Izhar  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1 &2    :      Exparte                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3          :      Shri  J.S.Sahni,  Advocate                         

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

     

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Manwar Ali, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a mobile set  Samsung A8 Gold bearing model no.G935F  from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.24,000/- vide invoice no. 0356 dated 03.05.2016 under one year warranty.   On 17.08.2016, display of the mobile set was damaged in the pocket of the complainant without any accident for which OP no.2 was approached who issued job sheet and told that mobile phone will be replaced within two days.  The complainant visited the OP no.2 number of times and ultimately on 25.10.2016 the OP no.2 returned the mobile set without any repair. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to replace the mobile set in question with new one of same model or in the alternative to refund the purchase amount i.e. Rs.24000/- along with interest @18% per annum from 17.08.2016 till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service the OPs no.1 and 2 did not appear and as such the OPs no.1 and 2 were proceeded exparte on 04.01.2017.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.3, it is denied that on 17.08.2016 the display of the mobile was damaged in the pocket of the complainant without any accident.  It is submitted that the OP no.2 told the complainant that due to breaking of  " display"  the product  is not covered under the warranty and repair will be done  on chargeable basis  but the complainant refused to get his handset repaired on chargeable basis. It is further submitted that the handset in question has been physically mishandled by the complainant as the ' Display'  of the handset was damaged.  It is also submitted that the complainant has neither alleged any specific irrepairable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence.  i.e. authenticated  report of independent expert and qualified person of central approved Laboratories. The complainant claims the said mobile to be suffering from defects, therefore, it is the legal duty, under the discharge of burden, upon the complainant to establish the same by technical expert report but no such report has been adduced by the complainant till date. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.3.

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.3 has tendered documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/3 and closed evidence.

5.             It is specific case of the complainant that on 17.08.2016, display of his mobile set was damaged in his pocket without any accident. On the other hand, in their reply OP no.3 has stated that for the first time  the handset was submitted with the OP no.2 on 17.08.2016 after 3 months of purchase and on inspection of handset  by OP no.2 the same was found to be physically damaged as the " display was damaged" which shows that there was no inherent defect in the handset and rather it was mishandled by the complainant leading to damage  of display of the handset. Due to physical damage caused to the handset it was not covered under warranty and repair was to be done on chargeable basis only but the complainant refused to get repaired his mobile set on chargeable basis and the mobile set in question was returned to the complainant without repair. To prove their case,  the OP no.3  has produced on record Annexure R-2 which is a customer details cum warranty card. We have perused  the same and found that at Sr. no.7  it has been specifically mentioned that in case of any damage to the produce/ misuse  detected by the authorized service centre personnel, the warranty conditions are not applicable and repairs will be done subject to availability of parts  and on a chargeable basis only.

6.             It is not the case of the complainant that  due to manufacturing defect in the mobile set the display of the same  was damaged in his pocket. Moreover, the complainant has not produced on record report of an expert which proves that there is  a manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question due to which its display was damaged. Further, to prove their case, the OP no.3 has also produced report of their service engineer namely Manoj Kumar along with his affidavit Ex.OP3/2 and Ex.OP3/3 wherein he opined that after inspection of the mobile he found that same has been physically mishandling by the complainant as the display of the handset was damaged which is not covered under the warranty as per terms and conditions of the warranty card.

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that the complainant has totally failed to prove his case and as such the present complaint is dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                 Announced

                May 2, 2017

 

 

 

 

 ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)      (Sarita Garg)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                 

 Member                      Member                      President

 

BBS/-