BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.247 of 2016
Date of Institution: 20.9.2016
Date of Decision: 31.5.2017
Sh. K.S. Chahal, Advocate, aged about 36 years son of Shri Baldev Singh, resident of 2166, Phase-III, HUDA, Sector 20, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Aneja Enterprises, Opposite New LIC Building Old Hospital Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its partner/ proprietor.
2. A.N. Telecom, 47, Dwarka Puri, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Incharge/ Manager.
3. Samsung Company, Electronics Private Limited, B-1, Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh through its Managing Director.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SMT. RAJNI GOYAT…………………PRESIDING MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Prahlad Rai, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 and 3.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that on 21.9.2015, he purchased one mobile Samsung Galaxy Grand-2 (7102) from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.12,000/- vide bill/invoice No.41371 dated 21.9.2015 with one year warranty. The op no.1 is authorized dealer, op no.2 is the care centre of the company and op no.3 is the manufacturing company of Samsung products. It is further averred that after purchase of said mobile, it could not be worked properly and there was serious charging problem, there was no battery back up, software problem/restart and its camera was also out of working. The complainant immediately approached op no.1 and at the asking of op no.1 he visited to op no.2 and handed over mobile and narrated the problems. The op no.2 after checking of mobile found that there is charging problem on 10.8.2016 and then it was repaired. However, the complainant again visited op no.2 with same problem on 18.8.2016 but to no effect. The op no.2 did not prepare job card inspite of his repeated requests and since 18.8.2016 till date he is visiting the op no.2 but all in vain. The set in question was returned to him by saying that it has become ok but no defect was removed and all the above said defects remained as it is. It is further averred that since 10,8.2016 the mobile has not been repaired and same was returned to him narrating that these defects are due to manufacturing defect and the ops have caused deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Op no.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.
3. Ops no.2 and 3 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. It has been submitted that answering ops as a matter of policy provides prompt after sales service in warranty period provided no outside interference/ repair has been done to the handset etc. and same is not mishandled but no such service was provided by the ops since outside interference/ repair was evident from the product thereby breaking the terms of the warranty provided. It has been further submitted that complainant alleged manufacturing defect in the product but alleged defect cannot be determined on the simple submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. The complainant has failed to prove alleged manufacturing/ technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report. It has been further submitted that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. has an online system to enter all claims/ complaints vide IEMI/Sr. No. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per details mentioned in the complaint, no details found in the online system of the company which means that complainant has never approached to the answering ops and which also means that there is no problem in the unit. The company provides one year warranty on the unit and the warranty means that in case of any problem with the unit the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per company policy. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
4. In evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and copy of bill Ex.P1. On the other hand, ops No.2 and 3 produced affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of warranty card Ex.R2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The opposite parties No.2 and 3 have filed evasive reply in a very casual manner and have also taken altogether contradictory stand. On one hand, they have averred that outside interference/ repair was evident from the product and on the other hand they have averred that they have not received any complaint of the complainant. The allegations of the complainant have not been refuted by reliable and cogent evidence. The ops no.2 and 3 who have expert service engineer could have examined the mobile in question from them even after filing of the present complaint in order to prove that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile but that has not been done by them. As the complainant is alleging defects in the warranty period and the opposite parties have failed to repair the mobile in question and even did not bother to examine the mobile even after filing of the complaint, we are of the considered view that opposite parties have caused deficiency in service towards the complainant. As such, the complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the mobile after some deductions.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.10,000/- against the price of the mobile in question (which was purchased for an amount of Rs.12,000/- ) to the complainant. The complainant is directed to deposit the mobile set in question with all accessories to the opposite party no.2 within 10 days after receipt of copy of this order with written intimation to ops no.1 and 3 and thereafter the ops will refund the above said amount to the complainant within a further period of one month after receipt of mobile set, failing which the opposite parties will also be liable to pay Rs.100/- per day as penalty to the complainant subject to maximum to the extent of price of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.12,000/- in addition to the above said amount of Rs.10,000/-. This order should be complied by all the opposite parties jointly and severally. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:31.5.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
