BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.262 of 2014

Date of Instt. 06.08.2014

Date of Decision :15.01.2015

Suraj @ Satish Kumar aged about 29 years, S/o Late Sadhu Ram, R/o H.No.103, BI Bazar, Jalandhar Cantt.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Om Communication, Deep Nagar, Jalandhar Cantt through its Prop./Partner/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, SCO-35, Hudda Main Market Gurgaon, Sector 31, Delhi-NCR-122001, Near Reliance Fresh Super Market, 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 handset make Samsung Glaxi Core, Model GT 18262 for Rs.13250/- from opposite party No.1 vide bill No.375 dated 10.9.2013. Warranty of 12 months was given for above product by the opposite parties and at the time of sale of said product the opposite party No.1 assured and told the complainant that in case of any complaint or defect, if found in the said mobile handset, the defect would be removed immediately or the mobile handset would be replaced with new one. After ten months from the date of purchase i.e within warranty period various defect arose in the above said mobile handset. At first its charging system failed and during operation the phone hanged. If re-operated it automatically used to switch off 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 the 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 on 24.7.2014 and told the complainant that its warranty period has expired, so they would not repair it. 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 replace the mobile handset or put the same into order. Despite repeated requests, several visits and so many telephonic talks the opposite parties neither replaced the handset nor rectified the fault. It is alleged that till date the said mobile handset is lying in the custody of opposite party No.2 and it has neither been repaired or replaced. 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 no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and against the answering opposite parties to file the present complaint. The handset in question has been mishandled by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service or breach of contract on the part of answering opposite parties. The answering opposite parties has never denied after sales services as duly admitted by the complainant in his complaint and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant but on chargeable basis as the complainant has committed breach of warranty conditions. When the handset was submitted with opposite party No.2 on 24.7.2014 on inspection by service engineer it was found that the handset was badly damaged as there was scratches on the chrome, battery was also damaged and set was liquid logged. This fact was brought to the notice of the complainant and was also mentioned in the job sheet. As the handset was liquid logged thus it was not covered under warranty and the repair was on chargeable basis. The manager of opposite party No.2 has been repeatedly calling complainant to either collect his handset or get its repaired on chargeable basis but complainant has intentionally not collected his handset and has now filed the present complaint. The alleged problems of not charging, auto off, hang as alleged in the complaint has occurred due to physical mishandling of the handset by complainant and there was no inherent defect in the handset. 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 affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of document Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 and 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A alongwith copy of document Ex.OP1 and evidence of opposite parties 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 10.4.2013 Ex.C1 from opposite party No.1. This fact is not disputed. In para 3 of the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that after ten months from the date of purchase i.e within warranty period various defect arose in the handset. So it means that mobile handset was working properly for ten months from the date of purchase. In case there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset then it would not have worked properly for ten months. The complainant has placed on record service request dated 24.7.2014 and in the service request scratches on the chrome, liquid logged and battery damaged are specifically mentioned. So it means that it is a case of physical damage to the mobile handset in question. The service request Ex.C2 is signed by the complainant. In case the set was not damaged as mentioned in the service request and there was no liquid logging in it, the complainant would have raised protest at the time of signing the service request dated 24.7.2014 Ex.C2. Since, it is a case of physical damage, as such it is not covered under the warranty. So complainant can either receive back mobile handset from the service centre in un-repaired condition or get the same repaired from service centre on payment of necessary charges.

8. In view of above circumstances, 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 Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

15.01.2015 Member President