Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/527

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Samsung India Electronic Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ramandeep Singh Adv.

08 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 527 dated 14.11.2019                                                        Date of decision: 08.09.2022  

Jaswinder Singh s/o Late S.Prabjit Singh, r/o 187, Sector-39A, Urban Estate, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana-141008.                                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.M/s Samsung India Electronics Ltd. having its registered office 6^th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001, through its Director/Authorized signatory.

2.Kiran Mobile Care Address- B-XIX-545/A&B-XIX-545/C, College Road, Ludhiana-141001.

3.M/s Mobile Clinic, St. No.8, Near Green Land School, Main Road, Sector-32, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                              …..Opposite parties

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         None for the complainant.

For OP1                         :         Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate

For OP2 and OP3          :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile handset i.e. Samsung J8 bearing No.SM-J810GZKGINS from M/s Satguru Electronics, Ludhiana for a sum of Rs.18,000/-. The mobile handset was repaired by the OP2 and OP3 several times but the defects could not be rectified. Due to defect in the mobile, the complainant lost his data many a times. Due to defect in the mobile, the complainant suffered a huge loss in the business also. The complainant lodged many complaints with the OPs on 02.05.2019, 06.06.2019 and 16.09.2019 but no satisfactory reply were given to the complainant in response to the complaints. Presently, the mobile is in the possession of OP2 who is an authorized service centre of OP1. On 17.09.2019, the complainant asked the OPs about the status of the mobile and the Supervisor of the OP1 namely Mukesh Kumar told the complainant that the mobile handset was under repair. The complainant approached another department of the OPs on 18.09.2019 but an officer of said department namely Richa also kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. It further shows that a mobile handset having manufacturing defects was sold to the complainant by the OPs deliberately and intentionally with a view to cheat him. The complainant got issued a notice dated 27.09.2019 to the OPs but the same was not responded to. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to replace the mobile with a new one or in the alternative, to refund the cost of the mobile along with compensation of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.8000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, OP2 and OP3 did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.02.2020.

3.                However, the complaint has been resisted by the OP1. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1, it has been, interalia, pleaded that as a matter of fact, the mobile handset was mishandled roughly and negligently used by the complainant due to which it stopped working properly. The handset was submitted with the OP3 on 02.05.2019 after more than 7 months of extensive usage. As the handset was under warranty as on 02.05.2019 and 06.06.2019, it was repaired by the OP3 free of cost and delivered back to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant again submitted the handset with the OP2 on 16.09.2019. The handset was again rectified and the problem of sound was corrected. After repair, the complainant was called upon to take back his mobile but the complainant did not turn up to receive it back from the OP2 for the reasons best known to him despite many calls made by the OP2. Thus, no case of deficiency of service on the part of the OP1 is made out. Moreover, the handset was mishandled and used negligently by the complainant which led to problems of touch, network and sound. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                The complainant formally submitted affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 attached with the complaint which can be read as evidence of complainant.

5.                 On the other hand, OP1 submitted affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Rajeev Gupta, Director-CS Customer Experience of OP1 along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed the evidence.

6.                In this case, none has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 10.05.2022. We have, however, heard the counsel for the OP1 and have also gone through record and proceed to decide the case on merits.

7.                In this case, grievance of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung J8 mobile handset from M/s Satguru Electronics, Ludhiana for a sum of Rs.18,000/- which started giving problems and was repaired by the OP2 and OP3 but despite that it was not functioning properly and presently the mobile is in possession of the OP2, the authorized service centre of Samsung. However, in the entire complaint, the complainant has not specified as to what defect was there in the mobile which could not be repaired. It has also been not mentioned as to when the mobile was handed over to the OP2 for the first time after its purchase on 05.12.2018. On the other hand, OP1 has specifically pleaded in the written statement that the mobile was submitted with the OP2 for the first time on 02.05.2019 after it had been used for more than 5-6 months. It has further been pleaded that the mobile was repaired free of cost and delivered back to the complainant on 06.06.2019 and thereafter, the complainant again submitted the mobile handset on 16.09.2019 and it was again repaired but the complainant did not collect the same from the OP1 despite various calls made to him. These facts have not been controverted by the complainant as no replication or rejoinder to the written statement has been filed by the complainant. In addition to this, the OP1 has further pleaded in the written statement that as a matter of fact, the mobile was mishandled and used negligently by the complainant as a result of which its sound, network and touch system was not working properly and apart from that there was no manufacturing defect. This part of the written statement has also not been controverted by the complainant. In the warranty card Ex.R4 produced on record by the OP1, it is clearly mentioned that the warranty does not cover any defect due to external factors or defect arising due to misuse of the product. Since the mobile has already been repaired but the complainant himself has not collected the same despite various calls having been made to him, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

8.                           As a result of the above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

 

                     (Jaswinder Singh)                      (K.K. Kareer)                                              Member                                   President

Announced in Open Commission                                           Dated:08.09.2022                                                                                    Gurpreet Sharma.