BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.426 of 2014

Date of Instt. 02.12.2014

Date of Decision :22.06.2015

Jagjit Singh Bedi son of Avtar Singh R/o 111, Janta Colony, Near Maqsudan, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Mobile House, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager.

2. Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, (Head Office), Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager.

3. Samsung Service Centre, 193, Civil Lines, Sanjay Gandhi Market at present Pam Rose Centre, Opp. International Hotel, Jalandhar.

4. Samsung India Electronics, B-I, SCO 81, Phase-2, Naider, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 1 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.GS Kahlon Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for Ops No.3 & 4.

Opposite parties No.1 & 2 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant has purchased one Samsung Mobile Model No.18262 357089059791931 vide invoice No.44015 dated 18.11.2013 and paid an amount of Rs.12,600/- inclusive of VAT and surcharge to the opposite parties No.1 & 2. At the time of purchasing the above mentioned mobile handset, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have fully assured the complainant that the mobile handset is in perfect condition and without any fault and the complainant purchased the mobile handset on the assurance of the opposite parties and as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the receipt it has been specifically mentioned that warranty of any mobile will be provided by their respective company service centre only and warranty period of the mobile handset is for one year as per the terms and conditions of the opposite parties. After receiving the mobile handset from the opposite parties No.1 and 2, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that there is a charging problem in the mobile handset purchased by the complainant and when complainant detected the above mentioned problem, he immediately approached the opposite party No.3 at their service centre and handed over the mobile handset to the opposite party No.3 on 25.9.2014 and requested the opposite party No.2 vide service request to repair the mobile handset and to remove the defect. The opposite party No.3 has returned the mobile handset to the complainant on 30.9.2014 without repairing the mobile handset and removing/rectifying the charging problem/defect in the mobile handset. It is further mentioned that at the time of receiving the mobile handset from complainant the opposite party No.3 has fully assured the complainant that they will repair the mobile set and remove the charging problem/defect in the mobile set as the warranty period of the mobile set has not expired, but the opposite party No.3 has failed to repair the mobile handset and further failed to remove the above mentioned problem. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay him the bill amount of Rs.12,600/- alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.3 and 4 appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that the handset in question has been badly mishandled and burnt by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or breach of contract on the part of the opposite parties No.3 and 4. The opposite parties No.3 and 4 or its service centre has never denied after sales service and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant but on chargeable basis as the handset has been burnt and this fact is clearly mentioned in job sheet dated 25.9.2014 placed on record by complainant. The complainant brought his handset with opposite party No.3 for first time on 25.9.2014 after ten months of purchasing the handset with problem "No Charging". On inspection of handset in presence of complainant by opposite party No.3, the handset was found to be burnt and this fact was mentioned in the job sheet dated 25.9.2014. The handset being burnt was not covered under warranty and repair was on chargeable basis, estimate of repair was not approved by complainant. Hence service request was cancelled and handset was returned to the complainant. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 and 2 did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.3 and 4 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties No.3 and 4.

7. It is not disputed that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 18.11.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.12,600/-. It is not disputed that mobile handset was carrying warranty of one year. According to the complainant, there arose charging problem in the mobile handset in question and he gave the same to the service centre vide job sheet dated 25.9.2014 but the service centre returned the mobile handset after five days without repairing it. On the other hand, according to opposite parties No.3 and 4, it was a burn case and as such the mobile handset was out of warranty. Further according to opposite parties No.3 and 4, they are ready to repair the mobile handset but on chargeable basis. We have carefully considered the version of both the parties. Ex.C2 is job sheet dated 25.9.2014 produced by the complainant. In the job sheet, burn case is specifically mentioned and against warranty status out of warranty is specifically mentioned. So being burn case, mobile was out of warranty. Physical damage is not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty. It is in the written reply of opposite parties No. 3 and 4 that they are still ready to provide service to the complainant but on chargeable basis as the handset has been burnt. So in the above circumstances, being burn case, the complainant is not entitled to repair of the handset free of cost. The opposite parties are ready to repair the handset on payment of requisite charges. So, he may approach the service centre for this purpose. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

7. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

22.06.2015 Member Member President