Haryana

Jind

110/13

Charan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Samsung Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. M.K. Redhu

05 Jan 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 110 of 2013

   Date of Institution: 22.5.2013

   Date of final order: 6.1.2015

Charan Singh s/o Sh. Dalip Singh r/o ward No.16 Saini Mohalla near BasantiMata Mandir, Narwana, District Jind.  

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. Manager Samsung Mobile care center near Abhinandan Hotel, Gohana road Jind, District Jind.
2. Managing Director Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. B-1 Sector-81 phase-2 Noida District Gautambudh Nagar (U.P).
3. Prop.Singla Communication, Opp. HUDA Complex, railway road, Narwana.

                                                    …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

Before: Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.

 

Present:  Sh. M.K. Redhu , Adv. for complainant.

             Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva, Adv. for  opposite Party No. 1&2.

             Sh. Brijesh Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.3.

            

ORDER:

 

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased a  mobile model Stare III dues S5222 for a sum ofRs.5400/- vide bill No.9363 dated 19.5.2012 from opposite party No.3. The guarantee period of  the above said mobile is one year from the date of purchase. After one month the mobile was stopped working. The complainant visited the office of opposite parties several times  and requested to  replace the defective  mobile set  but the opposite parties

                        Charan Singh Vs.Samsung Mobile etc.

                                          …2…

did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set to the complainant. It is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties have  appeared and  opposite party No.1 and 2 filed the joint written statement but opposite party No.3 filed the separate written statement. Opposite party No.1 and 2  have contended that the Engineer of the Company told the complainant that the mobile is in OK condition nd the same has been checked by the technicians and the battery charging time is OK. The unit is working properly so as per the Company norms if any unit can be repaired it cannot be replaced, but the complainant with his ill motive wanted to replace the handset. As per the company policy the company gives one year warranty on the unit warranty means in case of any problem with the unit the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced.  The complainant has not filed any expert report to prove the defect of his mobile set. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for.

3.     Opposite party No.3 has contending in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is not maintainable in the present

                        Charan Singh Vs.Samsung Mobile etc.

                                          …3…

forum and the complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it is contended that  the answering opposite party is only retailer(shop keeper) and he is not liable replace the mobile set. The manufacturing company will be liable for warranty and guaranty and there is no liability of answering opposite party.  The responsibility of repair or replace the mobile set is opposite party No.1 and 2. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for.   

4.        In evidence, the complainant has produced  his own affidavit  Ex. C-1 and copy of cash memo Ex. C-2 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the affidavit of Sh. Somya Sawroop Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Dharampal Ex. OP-2 and copy of cash memo Ex. OP-3 and closed the evidenced.

5.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The complainant had  purchased a mobile model Stare III dues S5222 from the opposite party No.3 for a sum of Rs.5400/- vide bill No.9363 dated 19.5.2012 Ex. C-2. The guarantee period of the said mobile is one year from the date of purchase. But after one month, the said mobile stopped working. The complainant visited the office of opposite parties several times for repair or replace the defective mobile set, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant on one

 

                        Charan Singh Vs.Samsung Mobile etc.

                                          …4…

pretext or the other. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged.

6.       On the other hand, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have averred that as per the policy, the company gives one year  warranty on the unit warranty means in case of any problem with the unit the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per company policy. The technology used by the company in manufacturing the word class electronic products is highly sophisticated. The complainant has not filed any expert report to prove the defect of his mobile set. The opposite party No.3 has averred that the answering opposite party is only  retailer (shop keeper) and he is not liable to replace the mobile set. The responsibility of repair or replace the mobile set is opposite party No.1 and 2.

7.       After going through the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties have failed to remove the defect of said mobile and the mobile of complainant was within warranty period and it was obligatory either to repair or replace. Deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the  complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the opposite party No.1 and 2 are directed to repair the mobile of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant or to replace it with new one within a period of one month from the date of order of this case. Parties will bear their own costs.   Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 6.1.2015

                                                                President,

 Member                                      District Consumer Disputes                                                               Redressal Forum, Jind