Haryana

Kaithal

CC/241/2022

Aman Gautam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Gaurav Communication Samsung Smart Cafe etc. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Ashok Gautam

12 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.241/2022.

                                                     Date of institution: 22.09.2022.

                                                     Date of decision:12.06.2023.

Aman Gautam, age 20 years, son of Sh. Ashok Gautam, # 1548/4, R.K.Puram Colony, Ambala Road, Kaithal, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. M/s. Gaurav Communication Samsung/Smart Café, through its Prop./Partner, Shop No.3, Padma City Mall, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
2. M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager/Director A-25 Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110014.
3. Unique Mobile Solutions, through its Prop./Partner, 1057/11, Marwa Complex, Kurukshetra Road, Kaithal.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Arvind Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the OP.No.2.

                OPs No.1 & 3 exparte.

               

ORDER

SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

        Aman Gautam-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased a Samsung Phone Model S22 ULTRA bearing IMEI No.357187980298818 vide bill No.812 dt. 09.03.2022 for the sum of Rs.1,09,999/- from the OP No.1.  The said mobile set was not working properly from the very first day and the complainant got repaired the said mobile set from the OP No.3 several times.  The case of the complainant is that for some days, the mobile set worked properly but after some times, the battery problem started, it had gone through network issue and the mobile set failed to work properly, sometimes its working stopped and sometimes, it switched off itself due to the same problem.  It is further alleged that the OP No.3 changed the mother-board of the said mobile set.  The complainant approached the OPs to replace the  mobile set but the OPs did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared before this Commission, whereas OPs No.1 & 3 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 04.11.2022 passed by this Commission.  OP No.2  contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that alleged defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same; that the complainant in regards to complaint regarding the unit in question approached the service-centre of company for the first and last time on 05.08.2022 vide job-sheet No.4352987648 and reported network & auto on/off problem in his unit.  The engineer of the service-centre checked the unit and found that the PBA (Mother-board) of the unit needs replacement.  The engineer told the complainant about the same and accordingly, the engineer replaced the PBA of the unit free of cost and the unit started working fine.  The unit was delivered to complainant in O.K. condition.  After that, no complaint was registered in regard to his unit.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 & Annexure-C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued the complainant purchased a Samsung Phone Model S22 ULTRA bearing IMEI No.357187980298818 vide bill No.812 dt. 09.03.2022 for the sum of Rs.1,09,999/- from the OP No.1.  It is further argued that the said mobile set was not working properly from the very first day and the complainant got repaired the said mobile set from the OP No.3 several times.  It is further argued that for some days, the mobile set worked properly but after some times, the battery problem started, it had gone through network issue and the mobile set failed to work properly, sometimes its working stopped and sometimes, it switched off itself due to the same problem.  It is further argued that the OP No.3 changed the mother-board of the said mobile set.  The complainant approached the OPs to replace the mobile set but the OPs did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has argued the complainant in regards to complaint regarding the unit in question approached the service-centre of company for the first and last time on 05.08.2022 vide job-sheet No.4352987648 and reported network & auto on/off problem in his unit.  It is further argued that the engineer of the service-centre checked the unit and found that the PBA (Mother-board) of the unit needs replacement.  The engineer told the complainant about the same and accordingly, the engineer replaced the PBA of the unit free of cost and the unit started working fine.  The unit was delivered to complainant in O.K. condition.  After that, no complaint was registered in regard to his unit.  It is further argued that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question.  It is further argued that the complainant has not moved any application under Section 38(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for taking expert opinion.  It is further argued by ld. counsel for the Op No.2 that the complainant is habitual of filing the complaint of mobile etc. and seven cases have already been decided by this Commission and he has also placed on file copies of seven orders passed by this Commission.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.  Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Bhagwan Singh Shekhawat Vs. M/s. R.K.Photostate & Communication 2017(2) CPJ 462 (Hon’ble National Commission); Ramesh Kumar Vs. Sahni Communication, 2017(2) CPJ 530 (Hon’ble National Commission); Md. Hassan Khalid Haidar Vs. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 08.06.2018 and Hero Moto Corp. Ltd. Vs. Gaurav Pandey & another decided by Hon’ble State Commission on 24.04.2015.

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  It is clear from the bill Annexure-C1 that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question on 09.03.2022.  It is also clear from the job-sheet as per Annexure-C2 that the complainant approached the service-centre first time on 05.08.2022 regarding mobile set.  In the job-sheet Annexure-C2 the defect in the mobile set is mentioned as “NETWORK ISSUE+AUTO OFF” and at that time, the PBA (mother-board) of the unit was replaced.  The complainant took the delivery of unit after his full satisfaction and also put his signature on the job-sheet.  Meaning thereby, the defect occurred in the mobile set after five months and the same was rectified as mentioned above.  If there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question, the same could not have run five months smoothly.  Moreover, the complainant has neither moved an application under Section 38(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for taking expert opinion nor has placed on file any expert report.  In this regard, we rely upon the case titled as Bhagwan Singh Shekhawat Vs. M/s. R.K.Photostate & Communication (supra), wherein it has been mentioned that “The complainant/petitioner purchased mobile set of Motorola for Rs.8,000/- from OP No.1 and OPs No.2 & 3 are service provider-The complainant found that mobile set was not working properly due to manufacturing defect-No expert opinion regarding defects in mobile set has been placed by complainant on record-Perusal of job card reveals that there was display problem meaning thereby, this problem occurred after more than 6 months.  In next job card complainant disclosed problem of ringer and key pad meaning thereby, there was no display problem at that time.  In next job card again complainant disclosed ringer problem.  The problems can arise while regular use of mobile and as ringer problem arose after almost 11 months, it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing defect particularly in the absence of expert opinion-The Court did not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.”  Similarly, we also rely upon the case law titled as Ramesh Kumar Vs. Sahni Communication (supra), wherein it has been held that “Mobile Phone-Software problem-Compensation of Rs.3,000/- awarded by District Forum-There is nothing on record to show that repaired phone handed over to petitioner was not in a working condition-There is nothing on record to show that after receipt of phone, he made another complaint to respondent regarding its malfunctioning-Revision petition dismissed.”  The aforesaid authorities are fully applicable to the facts of instant case as the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question.  Undisputedly, preamble of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is benevolent in nature but it does not give any liberty to anyone who wants to take undue benefit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

10.            As a result of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:12.06.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.