Haryana

Kurukshetra

193/2017

Saket - Complainant(s)

Versus

JMC - Opp.Party(s)

Rohtash Jangam

03 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.193 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 18.09.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 03.04.2018.

Saket Rajpal S/o Mahinder Kumar R/o Village Kheri Shahida, Ismailabad, Tehsil Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. J.M.C. Agencies, near Bus Stand, Ismailabad through its proprietor Vinay Bajaj.
2. Bansal Communication, near Gita Dwar, Pipli Chowk, Kurukshetra, authorized services centre Deepak Bansal.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20^th-24^th floor Two Horizen Centre, Gold Course Road, Sector-43, DLF, Phase-V, Gurgram (Haryana)-122202 through its Manager. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

Present:     Sh. Rohtash Jangam, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the OPs.No.2 & 3.

                Op No.1 exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Saket Rajpal against JMC Agencies and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set make SM-A910FZDDINS bearing IMEI No.352944080347563 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.32,500/- vide bill No.2400 dt. 27.11.2016.  It is alleged that after sometime, the display screen of the said mobile set was damaged and the said mobile set was not working properly.  It is further alleged that the complainant deposited the said mobile set with the Op No.2 but the Op No.2 gave the estimate of R.8300/- for repairs despite the fact that the said mobile set was within warranty period.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the defective mobile set with the new one or to refund the price of mobile set and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OPs No.2 & 3 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 30.10.2016.  Ops No.2 & 3 contested the complaint by filing their joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the answering Ops as a matter of policy issues prompt after sales service in warranty period no outside interference/repair has been done to the handset and the same was not mishandled but no such service was issued by the Ops since outside interference/repair was evident from the product thereby breaking the terms of the warranty provided; that the complaint of complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product but the complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report; that the complainant in regards to his complaint has approached the answering Ops on 24.08.2017 and the engineer of company checked the unit and found that the display of the unit was damaged due to mishandling on the part of complainant.  The engineer of company told the complainant that the unit cannot be considered under warranty as company provides a warranty of one year and warranty is subject to some conditions and one of the conditions is that if the unit got damaged due to mishandling, the warranty becomes void and accordingly, the Ops gave the estimate of repair but the complainant did not approve the estimate.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.                                                 

A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:03.04.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member