Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/299/2015

Mandeep S/o Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mehndiratta Music World - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Sheoran

14 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

Complaint No. 299 of 2015

Date of institution: 19.08.2015

Date of decision: 14.06.2017

 

Mandeep, aged about 26 years, son of Shri Suresh Kumar, resident of House No.9/5, Red Road, Near Nandani ICE Factory, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.

 …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Mehndiratta Music World, 4-C, Mela Singh Chowk, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/Partner.
2. Grover Computers and Electronics, 11A, 1^st Floor, OPP. Barnala Shopping Mall, Nehru Park, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/partner.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Head Office, 2nd, 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Gurgaon-122002 through its Managing Director.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND………..MEMBER

Present:           Shri Pardeep Sheoran, Advocate for complainant

                        OP No.1 already ex parte.

                        Shri Sumit Gupta, Advocate for OP No.2 and 3.

 

ORDER  (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 amended upto date against the respondent hereinafter will be referred as OPs.

 2.                    Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant has purchased the mobile make Samsung (G530H), colour Grey Model Galaxy Grand having IMEI No.356554/06/452729/0 for an amount of Rs.14,500/- vide bill No.3425 dated 15.01.2015 from the OP No.1 and the OP No.2 is authorized service centre of Samsung mobile and the OP No.3 is manufacturing company. After purchasing the said mobile phone, the complainant used the same. However, on 04.08.2015, when the complainant was using the said mobile phone and was talking to his friend then the said mobile phone suddenly heat up and shut down. Thereafter, the complainant tried his best to put the said mobile “ON” but despite best efforts the said mobile phone remained “OFF”. Upon which complainant contracted the OP No.1 and told about the said defect who advised the complainant to visit the OP No.2 Service Centre of the OP No.3. Accordingly, the complainant approached to the OP No.2 on 04.08.2015 and narrated the defect of the said mobile phone and after checking the mobile in question the official of the OP No.2 told to the complainant that said mobile phone has burnt and now the said mobile phone could not be “ON” because the said mobile phone has burnt due to its manufacturing defect. The job sheet/card was issued but lateron it was taken back by the OP No.2 when the complainant took back his mobile phone. After that, the complainant contacted the OP No.1 to replace the said mobile or refund the cost of mobile phone in question. But the OP No.1 flatly refused to do so. Hence, this complaint. Lastly prayed for directing the OPs to replace the mobile phone set or refund the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.14500/- and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear and he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 16.10.2015. However, OP No.2 and 3  appeared and filed their written statement jointly taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties; the present complaint is not maintainable as there is no manufacturing problem in the unit as the complainant approached to the OP No.2 with some problem and Engineer of the service centre checked the unit and found that the mobile of the complainant was burnt (mishandled due to over charging/or charging with NON Samsung Charger/Duplicate Charger) due to mishandling and told to complainant that the mobile is out of warranty due to (mishandling) and the repair of mobile shall be on paid basis. But, the complainant became adamant not to pay the charges of repair and demand a new mobile in replacement. It has been further submitted that company provides warranty of one year but the warranty of the unit is subject to some conditions and warranty of unit become void and the following conditions: -

1. Liquid Logged.
2. Physically Damage.
3. Serial No. missing.
4. Tampering
5. Mishandling etc.

 

and on merit all the of the averments made in the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objection.

4.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A, photocopy of bill bearing No.3425 dated 15.01.2015 as Annexure C-1 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.2 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Anindey Bose, C/o Samsung India Private Limited as Annexure R-A, photocopy of warranty card as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2 and 3.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant has purchased the mobile phone Samsung Galaxy Grand having IMEI No.356554/06/452729/0 for an amount of Rs.14500/- vide bill No.3425 dated 15.01.2015 from the OP No.1.

8.                     The only grievance of the complainant is that on 04.08.2015 when he was using the said mobile phone and was talking to his friend then the said mobile phone suddenly heat up and shut down. Thereafter, the complainant tried his best to put the said mobile set “ON” but the same remained “OFF”. Accordingly, he visited the service centre of the OP No.2 on the same date i.e. 04.08.2015 but the official of the OPs refused to repair the same and told to the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect and the mobile set in question is out of warranty due to mis-handling.

9.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that even the official of the OP No.2 had taken back the job card which was issued to him at the time of returning the un-repaired mobile set in question. Lastly prayed for acceptance of the complaint on the ground that mobile set in question was under warranty of one year and become defective within a short span of time i.e. 7 months from its purchase.

10.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 and 3 argued that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question and if there was any defect it was due to mis-handling of the phone in question on the part of the complainant himself and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as from the perusal of bill (Annexure C-1), it is duly evident that complainant purchased the mobile set in question on 15.01.2015 and it become defective on 04.08.2015 i.e. within a period of 6-7 months from its purchase during the currency of warrant of one year. Further, from the perusal of Para No.8 of the written statement of preliminary objections it is also clear that mobile set in question was defective as the OPs No.2 and 3 have himself admitted in this para that “Engineer of the Service Centre checked the unit and found that mobile of the complainant was burnt due to overcharging/charging with non Samsung charger or Duplicate Charger and told to the complainant that the mobile is out of warranty due to mis-handling and the repair of mobile shall be on paid basis. Meaning thereby that the official of the OPs wrongly and illegally rejected the requests of the complainant to repair the mobile set in question or replace the same due to the reason best known to them. Otherwise, when the complainant was having original charger of Samsung Company which was provided to him at the time of purchasing the mobile set in question by the OP No.1 then no question arise to charge the mobile set in question with non Samsung charger or duplicate charger, as alleged in the written statement filed by the OP No.2 and 3. It seems that this stand has been taken by the OPs just to save the skin from the liability which constitutes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Nowadays due to heavy demand of the mobile set in public, manufacturing companies are not so serious in regard to the quality of the product and even the service centre of the manufacturing company are not providing proper service to the customers on the one pretext or the other. In the present case also the official of service centre failed to provide proper service by rectifying the defects of the mobile set in question which proves their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

12.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP No.2 and 3 to refund amount of Rs.14,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till realization and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3000/- subject to deposit of old mobile set in question with the OP No.2 and 3. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in open court:

Dated: 14.06.2017.

           

                                                                         (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                         PRESIDENT,

                                                                         DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR

 

 

      (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                 (S.C.SHARMA)

       MEMBER                                                  MEMBER