BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 150 of 2017.
Date of Institution: 13.10.2017.
Date of Order: - 28.02.2019.
Mangal Chand son of Shri Naresh Kumar, resident of Thakuron ki Bagri, Ward No. 16, House No.468, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. Kapil Kakkar, Kapil Enterprises, Samsung Mobile Service Centre, near Durga Cycle Store, Ghanta Ghar Road, Dinod Gate, Bhiwani.
2. Sunil Kumar, Manager, Kapil Enterprises, Samsung Mobile Service Centre, near Durga Cycle Store, Ghanta Ghar Road, Dinod Gate, Bhiwani.
3. General Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF, Ph.-V, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122202.
…...Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri Sunil Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.
OPs No. 1 and 2 already exparte.
Shri R. K. Verma, Advocate for the OP No. 3.
ORDER: -
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that he has purchased Samsung-S-8 from Simple Mobile, Bhiwani on 3.5.2017 for Rs. 57,900/-, bearing IMEI No.358058/01/008763/4. It is alleged that charger and earphone of the mobile set become defective on 5.10.2017 and when complainant approached the OP No. 2 for the replacement of the same, Shri Sunil Kumar, Manager get deposited the mobile set and issued bill no.4246625422 dated 5.10.2017. It is further alleged that when complainant call telephonically 5-6 times to know the status of the mobile set, one Pooja technical assistant told to inform about the status of the mobile set in 10-15 minutes, but not informed till date. It is further alleged that in job sheet the mobile set shown dead + some time not work, which is not correct, because if the mobile is dead then the same cannot be functioned. It is further alleged that the OP No. 2 has wrongly deposited the mobile set for replacing the charger and ear phone and they have also not given the standby of the mobile set and due to this complainant had to purchase new mobile set. It is further alleged that the OPs have returned the mobile set with small marks on it and the mobile become switch off at its own. It is further alleged that the OP service centre has formatted the mobile, which is not necessary for the replacement of the earphone and charger. It is further alleged that when Advocate reached the Service Centre of the OPs, the security guard was not in proper dress, having no identity card and he was not appearing as security guard of the company, which is breach of the Rules. It is further alleged that Kapil told that security guard was only for two days and now he is not working, whereas the security guard is continuously working there till date. It is further alleged that as per the Labour & Employment Ministry and Labour Act, 1948, salary of Rs. 16,182/- is to be paid to 12th pass employee direct in the account or through cheque, whereas the OPs are paying only Rs.8000/- to 9000/-, which is breach of law. It is further alleged that the OP service centre are accepting the cash payment from the consumers and no POS machine is available with them. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, no one appeared on behalf of OP No.1 & 2 despite service and they were proceeded against exparte by the Forum vide its order dated 27.11.2017.
3. OP No. 3 on appearance filed contested written statement denying the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint. It is alleged that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain & adjudicate the present complaint, as answering OP has its registered office at New Delhi and accordingly complaint is liable to be rejected on this ground. It is further alleged that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, as the complainant has not impleaded party the retailer from whom the product pin question has been purchase, who is also one of the necessary party to the present complaint. It is further alleged that the answering OP has provided services to complainant as and when required. It is further alleged that complainant is baseless and a result of colorful legal advice just only to grab unlawful illegal benefits from the answering OP. It is further alleged that complainant has approached the service centre on 5.10.2017 and 12.10.2017 and reported dead, sometime not work, charger and data cable not working problems in the unit and after that the engineer of the OP thoroughly checked the unit and found that the PBA and Tape Kit of the unit was burnt and the same got replaced and also software of the unit got updated and the unit started working in complete OK condition and after that the complainant never reported any issue. It is further alleged that the company provides one year warranty on the unit, warranty means in case of any problem, the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per warranty policy. It is further alleged that the answering OP provides one year warranty, subject to some terms & conditions and warranty becomes void if liquid logged/water logging, physically damage, serial no. missing, tampering and mishandling/ burnt etc. It is further alleged that as per the condition of the warranty replacement of product or refund is expressly excluded and warranty covers only repair or replacement of part. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with heavy costs, in the interest of justice.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the documents Annexure C-1 and Annexure C2 in his evidence to prove his version and close the evidence.
5. Ld. Counsel for OP No. 3 has closed the evidence, without placing on record any evidence.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the case file carefully.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves dismissal, as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. From the perusal of the complaint itself, it is clear that the complainant has made false and frivolous allegations in his complaint i.e. regarding dressing of security guard, identity card of security guard, salary of staff etc., whereas he has no concern with these issues. The complainant has mentioned in his complaint that when Advocate reached the Service Centre of the OPs, the security guard was not in proper dress, having no identity card and he was not appearing as security guard of the company, which is breach of the Rules, one Kapil told that security guard was only for two days and now he is not working, whereas the security guard is continuously working there till date, as per the Labour & Employment Ministry and Labour Act, 1948, salary of Rs. 16,182/- is to be paid to 12th pass employee direct in the account or through cheque, whereas the OPs are paying only Rs.8000/- to 9000/-, which is breach of law and the OP service centre are accepting the cash payment from the consumers and no POS machine is available with them. These issues are clearly no connection with the mobile set of the complainant. The Complainant has miserably failed to produce on record some cogent and convincing documentary evidence to prove his case regarding defect in his mobile set. From the pleadings made by the complainant in his complaint, it appears that a vague, baseless, false & frivolous complaint has been filed just to extract some money from the OPs under the garb of the present complaint. As per Section-26 of the C.P. Act, 1986, which is reproduced as under: -
“Where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint and make an order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party such cost, not exceeding ten thousand rupees, as may be specified in the order”.
8. In our view, this is a fit case which should be dismissed with costs, as provided in the C. P. Act and set an example for the people like complainant not to file false and frivolous complaints for just to take undue advantage of the law framed for the favour of the genuine people. But this Forum has taken a lenient view and only warns the complainant to be careful in future and to avoid filing such type of false & frivolous complaints.
9. So, in view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as the mobile set of the complaint has been repaired by them, as & when he approached with the OPs for the repair of the same. Hence, the complaint is dismissed with no order of costs. The complainant is warranted to be careful in future for indulging in false & unnecessary litigation. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: - 28.02.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
