BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.272 of 2014

Date of Instt. 12.08.2014

Date of Decision :15.01.2015

Rishabh Sharma, aged about 26 years, son of Lalit Sharma, R/o 315, Raja Garden, Jalandhar-144021.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Mobile House, H.O:-Chadha Mobile House Pvt, Ltd, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar, through its Prop./Partner/Director/Authorized Representative.

2. Samsung Service Centre, Pamm Rose World Trade Centre, Bus Stand, Near Indo Canadian Bus Service, Jalandhar, through its Manager/Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd, 2nd, 3rd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech.Square, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Gurgaon-122002 through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Complainant in person

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for Ops No.2 & 3.

Opposite party No.1 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a mobile 19082 Galaxy Grand 356150056767 for Rs.18,500/- from opposite party No.1 vide bill No.23046 dated 11.8.2013. Warranty of 12 months was given for above mobile handset. In the last week of April 2014 within warranty period various defects arose in the above said mobile handset. At first during operation the phone hanged, its screen colour became dim, shivering and unwanted lines appeared on the screen and its censor ceased which caused a lot of inconvenience and mental agony to complainant. The complainant brought above defects into the notice of the opposite party No.1 who advised the complainant to contact opposite party No.2. As per advise of opposite party No.1 the complainant went to opposite party No.2, told all defects and handed over the defective mobile handset to opposite party No.2. After checkup the opposite party No.2 kept the defective handset with them and returned the same after two hours saying that all the problems have been rectified. After some time the same defects again arose in the above said handset i.e during operation the phone hanged, its screen colour became dim, shivering and unwanted lines appeared on screen and its censor ceased. Besides these defects one more defect arose in the said handset i.e incoming call failed to appear. Sometimes incoming call would come and some times would not come. When the Airtel company sent message for missed call (i.e you have been called 1,2,5 times) but no incoming call appeared in the mobile phone. The complainant made setting in the phone, changed the Sim Card and also got the checked the network but when the other person called, no call came in the mobile phone. For example on 5.6.2014 at 02.32 PM one person made call to complainant's mobile phone but the said call did not reach the mobile handset. Despite full signals the said mobile phone created voice "Not Reachable". The complainant again went to opposite party No.1 and requested to replace the mobile handset as the same could not be put in order despite best efforts of the opposite party No.2 but the opposite party No.1 refused to replace the said mobile handset and told the complainant that only the opposite parties No.2 or 3 can replace the said handset. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 and requested them to rectify the above mentioned defects or replace the mobile handset. The opposite party No.2 checked the mobile handset and kept the same with them vide their service request dated 25.7.2014. The opposite party No.2 returned the phone on next day on 26.7.2014 saying that all defects have been removed. But after 2-3 days the same defects again arose in the said mobile handset. Again on 30.7.2014 the complainant went to opposite party No.2 and told for the said defects. The opposite party No.2 kept the phone with them vide service request dated 30.7.2014. After checkup the opposite party told the complainant that being major fault, the mobile handset would be sent to their higher service centre and called on the complainant to collect the phone after five days. After five days on 3.8.2014 the opposite party No.2 gave the mobile handset to complainant saying that all defects have been rectified but after 2-3 days same defects arose in the said mobile handset. On such like averments, complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the mobile handset with new one or to refund its price alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the obligation of the answering opposite parties under warranty is to set right the mobile handset by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. The performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product apart from installation and downloading of various mobile application, games and other software. The problems alleged by the complainant are minor problem and the same were duly rectified and handset was made OK. But the complainant intentionally with ulterior motive had now filed the present complaint. The liability of the answering opposite parties under the terms and conditions of the warranty is limited to the extent to set right the product by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. No such assurance to replace the handset is given by the answering opposite parties under the terms of the warranty and the complainant can not claim more than he has agreed. Admittedly the handset was brought to opposite party No.2 in the last week of April 2014 with problem of hanging. The problems were duly rectified and updated software was reloaded and handset was delivered back in OK condition. The handset was again brought to opposite party No.2 on 25.7.2014 and 30.7.2014 with alleged problem of hanging and incoming call problem. The said problems were occurring due to corruption of software. The software gets corrupted due to installation and using non-compatible mobile applications and games. However, updated software was reloaded and PBA replaced and handset was made OK to the satisfaction of complainant. However, as a goodwill gesture and without going into the merits of the present complaint, the answering opposite parties are still ready to render further service with regard to the mobile phone in question, if required. If the complainant does not agree with the contentions of opposite parties then the opposite parties through this reply request the Forum to direct the complainant to submit his handset with the authorized service centre for inspection and expert opinion regarding the exact condition of the handset as required under the law. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central approved laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. In the absence of any expert evidence the claim can not be allowed. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 did not appear and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of document Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 and 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of opposite parties was closed by order.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3.

7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question vide retail invoice dated 11.8.2013 for Rs.18500/- from opposite party No.1. According to the complainant during warranty period i.e in April 2014 various defects arose in his mobile handset and first during operation the phone hanged, its screen colour became dim, shivering and unwanted lines appeared on the screen and its censor ceased. He approached opposite party No.2 and after checking the mobile handset was returned after two hours saying that problems have been rectified. Further according to the complainant after sometime, the same defects again appeared in his handset and further sometime incoming call would appear and some time not. According to the complainant he used to receive message from service provider that he has been called 1,2,5 times but no incoming call would appear in the mobile phone. Further he changed the Sim card and got checked the network but the defect remain there. Further according to the complainant he approached opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 kept the handset with it with service request dated 25.7.2014 and returned the handset on next day i.e 26.7.2014 saying that defects have been removed but after 2-3 days the same defects again appeared in his mobile handset. Further according to the complainant on 30.7.2014 he again went to opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 kept the handset with service request dated 30.7.2014 and after 5 days opposite party No.2 again returned the mobile handset to him saying that all defects have been rectified but after 2-3 days same defects again appeared in his mobile handset. In support of his version, the complainant has tendered his affidavit and also placed on record copy of messages received about missed call on different dates, service request dated 25.7.2014 Ex.C5 and service request dated 30.7.2014 wherein PBA i.e mother board replaced is mentioned. Mother board is main part of the mobile handset. So it means that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile handset and that is why its mother board was replaced. However, it is in the affidavit of the complainant that after 2/3 days same defects again arose in the said mobile handset. So the opposite parties have failed to rectify the defect in the mobile handset of the complainant inspite repeated visits to the service centre and as such the complainant is entitled to replacement of the mobile handset with new one.

8. In view of above discussion, the complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.2 and 3 are directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order after receiving the old mobile handset from the complainant. The complainant is granted Rs.2000/- on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

15.01.2015 Member President