Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/726/2019

Aviansh - Complainant(s)

Versus

laxmi enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

in person

24 Feb 2023

ORDER

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.

                                                              Complaint No. : 726 of 2019

                                                              Instituted on     : 27.08.2019

                                                              Decided on       : 24.02.2023

 

Avinash Kumar Sharma s/o Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma R/o H.No.651/1, Vidya Nagar Surajmal Marg Band gali, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

                                                                        ………..Complainant.

                               Vs.

 

1. Laxmi Enterprises Halwasiya Mall Bhiwani-127021.
2. Samsung Service Centre Care, Dinod Gate, Bhiwani-127021.
3. Samsung Service Centre, Jain Mansion Huda Complex Near Old Gymkhana Club, Rohtak-124001.
4. Samsung Service Centre, Advance Technology, 213/37, First Floor above Easy Day Rohtak Store, Main Jharsa Road, Kirti Nagar, Near Sector-15, Gurgaon, Haryana India-122001.
5. Samsung Service Centre, C3/117, Near Presidinm School Pocket C3, Phase 2, Ashok Vihar, Near Delhi-110052.
6. Sansung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. 14-15, Floor DLF Phase-IV Two Horizen Centre Sector 43, Gurgaon-122002.

 

……….Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

 

BEFORE:   SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                     SMT. SAROJ BALA, MEMBER.

                      

Present:        Complainant in person.

                     Opposite party no. 1 already exparte.

                     Sh. Rajender Verma, Advocate for opposite party no.2 to 6. 

                                          

                      

                                         ORDER

 

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

 

1.                Brief facts of the case, as per complainant are that  he had purchased a mobile phone of Samsung Company, Model S10E white colour from the opposite party no.1 on dated 30.05.2019 for a sum of Rs.51000/- with 14 days guarantee and one year warranty. Opposite party No.1 is the retailer of opposite party No.2 to 5. The IMEI no. of the mobile is 355028100165606. The alleged mobile worked properly only for 5 days and thereafter it stopped working. Complainant informed the same to the opposite party no.1 and opposite party asked the complainant to contact the opposite party No.2. Thereafter complainant contacted the  opposite party No.2 but the opposite party no.2 refused to repair the mobile phone within warranty and told the complainant that he had to pay the repair charges. Complainant refused for the same as the mobile was within warranty period. The officials of opposite party No.2 kept the mobile phone with them after showing the same out of warranty and also misbehaved with the complainant. It is further submitted that opposite party No.3 to 5 did not take any action against the opposite party No.2 even after knowing about all the misbehavior done by the opposite party No.2 . Despite repeated requests of the complainant, his mobile phone has not been repaired  by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile of Rs.51000/- alongwith financial loss and harassment caused by opposite parties and compensation on account of defamation caused by opposite party no.2 amounting to Rs.150000/- to the complainant.

2.                  After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 did not appear despite notice through registered post and as such after expiry of statutory period of 30 days, opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.10.2019 of this Commission. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that company provides one year warranty on the unit and 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.Mistandling/burnt etc.  6. Misuse of any defect due to external factors.  In the present case the warranty of alleged unit has gone barred due to Short Circuit due to intentional attempt of short circuit of the unit by the complainant and the same is not covered under warranty.  As such repair of the unit has attracted charges, but the complainant is not ready to get his unit repaired as per warranty conditions. In fact, the complainant in regards to complaint regarding the unit in question, approached to the answering service center on 04.06.2019 vide job sheet no.4283996837 and reported handset dead problem in his unit. The engineer of the service center duly received the unit and checked and found that the circuit of the mobile is dead due to intentional short circuit.  For sake of confirmation of complainant, the unit of complainant was again cross checked by the senior engineer of the company i.e. Mr. Naveen and again it was found and confirmed that the unit in question has got damaged/dead due to intentional attempt of short circuit of the unit.  As per warranty policy of the company, the unit of complainant cannot be considered under warranty and the repair of the unit shall be on chargeable basis. In accordance with the same, an estimate of repair was provided to the complainant, but the complainant refused to get his unit repaired. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cots.

3.                  Opposite party No. 2 to 5 in their reply has submitted that the complaint of the complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product. It is pertinent to mention here that alleged defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. It is pertinent to mention here that it is the settled position of law that an expert opinion/cogent evidence is mandatory under section 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act to prove the allegations/averments made by complainant. The complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report for the perusal of the Hon’ble Commission and in the absence of any technical report, the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal on this ground alone. It is further submitted that no details found in the online system of answering opposite parties which means that complainant has never approached to the answering opposite parties and the present compliant has been filed just to grab benefits illegally from the answering opposite parties. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                  Opposite party No.6 in its reply has submitted that  complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report for the perusal the Hon’ble Commission and in the absence of any technical report, the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal on this ground alone. Answering opposite party has also re-iterated the facts mentioned in reply filed by opposite party no. 2 to 5  and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.                  Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C2 and closed his evidence on dated 29.10.2021. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 to 6 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R11 and closed his evidence on dated 20.07.2022. Opposite party no. 2 has tendered affidavit RW-2/A and closed his evidence on 23.12.2022.

6.                  We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

7.                  In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant had purchased a mobile set for a sum of Rs.51000/- from the opposite party No.1 on dated 30.05.2019 as is proved from the bill Annexure C1. It is also not disputed that complainant had approached the opposite party No.2 on 11.06.2019 for the defect in the alleged mobile. As per copy of email dated 11.06.2019 attached with the affidavit Ex.CW1/A, opposite party has submitted that : “After an extensive research by our certified technical support engineer, we found that the product has developed a fault during its normal usage.  The total repair cost for the product is Rs.23062.4/-”. To prove the same opposite parties have only placed on record copy of email Ex.R7 of Naveen Kaushik. But the alleged report is not supported with the affidavit of Naveen Kaushik. Moreover, it is not proved by the opposite parties that the defect in the alleged mobile appeared due to mishandling/manhandling on the part of complainant. Hence the act of opposite parties of not repairing or replacing the mobile in question within warranty period is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. It is also on record that the mobile in question became defective just within one month of its purchase, which shows that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile in question. As such opposite party No.6 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the cost of mobile set to the complainant.

8.                  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the compliant and direct the opposite party No.6 to pay the amount of Rs.51000/-(Rupees fifty one thousand only)  alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.27.08.2019 and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite party No.6 at the time of making the payment by the opposite party No.6, if the mobile is in his possession.

 9.                          Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

24.02.2023.

 

                                                             ................................................

                                                              Nagender Singh Kadian, President

 

                                                             

                                                             ..........................................

                                                              Saroj Bala, Member.