DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 72 of 5.3.2018

                                      Decided on:   15.12.2020

Avtar Singh Tiwana, aged about 38 years S/o Sh.Jaswant Singh R/o VPO Dhablan,Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. M/s Bhatia Mobile Hut, through  its Prop./Owner/Incharge C/o Lahori Gate, near Bus Stand, Patiala, authorized Dealer, Samsung India Ltd.
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., through its Incharge, having registered Office A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., through its Incharge having Local Service Station Centre, SCO No.33, Ist Floor, City Centre, Bhupindra Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.M.S.Dhingra,counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite parties No.1&3  ex-parte.

                                      Sh.J.S.Sandhu, counsel for OP No.2.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Avtar Singh Tiwana  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against M/s Bhatia Mobile Hut and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case  are that the complainant purchased  mobile hand set of the brand of Samsung, Model S-7 Edge, bearing IMEI No.357327/07/009346/9,  for an amount of Rs.55,900/- on 18.3.2016 from OP No.1.
3. It is averred that after three/four months of its purchase the hand set started giving problem. Complainant called OP No.1. OP No.1 sent the complainant to service centre at Patiala who updated the software of the mobile handset in question after which the hand set of the complainant started running smoothly. However, in the month of January,2017, the mobile in question again started giving problem. The complainant called service centre of OPs who started demanding money from him for the repair of the same.
4. It is further averred that there are two types of guarantee i.e. express guarantee and implied guarantee. It is averred that during the period of express guarantee of one year, the mobile software was upgraded. However, after the expiry of express guarantee, mobile phone is not working and the company is demanding handsome amount for the repair of the same. Due to the said act of the OPs the complainant suffered mental torture, trauma, agony for not replacing the mobile hand set and has suffered a great financial loss for not using the mobile set in a proper working condition. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complainant also got sent legal notice upon the OPs on 15.1.2018 for the replacement of the mobile handset but to no effect.
5. It is further averred that the officials of the OPs called the complainant for the repair of the mobile handset free of cost but without any further guarantee for which the complainant was not interested. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to  replace the mobile set with any other model of Samsung mobile of the same value with new one and also to pay Rs.30,000/- as damages for causing mental agony, harassment and loss in business alongwith Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses and counsel fee.
6. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs. OPs No.1&3 did not appear despite and were accordingly proceeded against exparte. OP No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply.
7. In the written reply filed by OP No.2, it raised preliminary objections that the there is no breach of warranty terms and conditions. The handset as alleged by the  complainant was purchased on 18.3.2016 and the statutory warranty of one year was expired on 17.3.2017.Neither any problem has been reported by the complainant in the mobile nor any complaint has been lodged within the warranty period. That the complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties; that no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint; that the present complaint is totally false and frivolous; the complainant is not entitled for any relief as he has concealed the true and material facts; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; there is no defect in the mobile hand set in question, if any defect arose after the expiry of warranty period then repair is done on chargeable basis; that the present complaint is gross abuse of the process of law and is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act; that the liability of the OP is subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty as mentioned in warranty card; that in the absence of any duly qualified independent expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed; the replacement or refund is only permissible where defect developed during the period of warranty; that the complaint is gross misuse of process of law; that the relief sought by the complainant in the present complaint is beyond the agreed terms and conditions of warranty.
8. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant  has never approached the service centre and reported any kind of problem. It is further submitted that the OP gives only warranty as per warranty terms and conditions.The OP denied  all other averments  made in the complaint, and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit, Ex.CA of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C9 and closed the evidence.
10. The ld. counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Anup Kumar Mathur, Director Samsung India Electronics Ltd. Ex.OPA alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
12. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased the mobile hand set worth Rs.55,900/- on 18.3.2016 from the authorized agent of Samsung India i.e. OP No.1 vide bill,Ex.C1.The ld. counsel further argued that after 3-4 months of its purchase, the mobile in question started giving problems and the complainant called OP No.1.Then the OP No.1 sent him to service centre to get updated the software. However, in the month of January,2017, the mobile in question again started giving problem. The ld. counsel further argued that despite this fact till date the mobile has not been repaired to the full satisfaction. The ld. counsel further argued that there is warranty of one year and mobile became defective during one year so the complaint be allowed.
13. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.2 has argued that the complainant has purchased the mobile and there was warranty of one year which was expired on 17.3.2017.The ld. counsel further argued that it is the responsibility of OPs No.1&3 .There is no role to play for OP No.2.The ld. counsel further argued that there is no defect in the mobile and the complaint be dismissed.
14. To prove his case Sh.A.S.Tiwana, has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and has deposed as per the averments made in the complaint.Ex.C1 is the bill dated          18 March, 2016 whereby the complainant purchased Mobile of the model of Samsung S7 Edge worth Rs.55,900/-.Ex.C2 is the legal notice sent to all the OPs.Exs.C3 to C5 are the postal receipts. Ex.C6 is the acknowledgement of service request.Ex.C7 is a receipt of Samsung Service Center.
15. On behalf of OP No.2 Sh.Anup Kumar Mathur, tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and has deposed as per the written statement.Ex.OP1 is the warranty card. It is detailed one, in which everything is mentioned about the warranty.Ex.OP5 is unit front image.
16. As per the document, Ex.C1, the mobile was purchased by the complainant on 18 March,2016 for Rs.55,900/-.As per the document,Ex.OP2, the warranty was of one year and warranty was to expire on 17.3.2017.Ex.C10 is the customer information slip, dated 24.1.2017 in which the complainant had lodged a complaint. So it is clear that the complaint was lodged within one year of the warranty card. When the mobile was not working  legal notice was duly sent vide registered post. The copy of the legal notice is Ex.C2 and the postal receipts are Exs.C3 to C5 but strangely enough no reply was sent by any of the OPs, although it was sent through registered post. There are various job sheets on the file which show that there was defect in the mobile which could not be removed. So it is clear that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and OP No.3.
17. So due to our above discussion, the mobile became defective  within one year of the warranty and the complaint was lodged within warranty period. As such the complaint stands allowed against OPs No.1&3 only. The OPs No.1&3 are directed to repair the mobile hand set in question to the satisfaction of the complainant. They are also directed to pay Rs.15000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.           

Compliance of the order be made by the OPs No.1&3 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:15.12.2020.    

                                      Y.S.Matta                       Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                         Member                                  President