DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.120 of 31-01-2014

Decided on 28-04-2014

Amit Jain aged about 21 years S/o Bajrang Lal Jain R/o C/o Jain Metal Store, House No.3270, Behind Bus Stand, Bathinda, Punjab, Tehsil and District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110004, through its Managing Director.

Second Address:-M/s Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, B-1 Sector 81, Phase II Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar (UP) A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110004, through its Managing Director.

2.M/s Samsung Mobile Service Centre, Shri Ram Tele Services, Street No.6, Near Public Dharamshala, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Manager Rajiv Goyal.

3.M/s Kansal's Mobile House, Shop No.1, SSD Market, Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, Bathinda-151001, through its Proprietor.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Amit Jain, complainant in person.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Kuljit Pal Sharma, counsel for the opposite party Nos.1

and 2.

Opposite party No.3 ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased one Samsung mobile handset model 7562 bearing IMEI No.354905055618658, 354906055618656 for Rs.13,200/- vide retail invoice No.2269 from the opposite party No.3, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 on dated 19.3.2013. In the month of April, 2013 i.e. soon after the purchase of the abovesaid mobile handset, it started giving problems regarding display, front case and other defects. The complainant got repaired the abovesaid mobile handset from the opposite party No.2 by paying the amount of Rs.2500/-, but the abovesaid mobile handset again started giving the problems and its jack (For charging) has been replaced twice, despite that it was working 50%. In the month of October, 2013, the opposite party No.2 updated the software of the abovesaid mobile handset and thereafter in the month of December, 2013, the opposite party No.2 changed its board, but the mobile handset in question could not be rectified as it is still not connecting the mobile calls. After that the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, but to no avail. Since the mobile handset in question is beyond repair and suffered from the manufacturing defect, despite that the opposite parties did not replace it. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to refund the price of the abovesaid mobile handset i.e. Rs.13,200/- alongwith cost and compensation or to give him any other relief for which he may be found entitled to.

2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that under the warranty their obligation is to set right the abovesaid mobile handset by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. The performance of the abovesaid mobile handset depends upon the handling of the product and downloading of the various mobile applications, games and virus threat from the internet usage. No assurance of the replacement of the abovesaid mobile handset was given by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 under the terms of the warranty and the complainant cannot claim more than he has agreed to. The problem of software mentioned in the complaint is due to downloading and installation of the non-compatible mobile applications, games etc. leading to the software corruption resulting to non-working of certain applications and problems in using the internet. The alleged problems of charging jack, trouble in display, front case are due to physical damage and mishandling. The opposite party No.2 rectified the alleged problems as and when the complainant brought his mobile handset with it. However, as a goodwill gesture the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are still ready to render the service to the complainant with regard to the mobile handset in question, if required. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect or inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of his allegations. To support their version the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 relied upon various authorities. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 denied that the complainant got repaired the abovesaid mobile handset from the opposite party No.2 by paying the amount of Rs.2500/- or it has been working 50% only or he visited the shop of the opposite party No.2 in the month of October, 2013.

3. Notice by hand/dasti was sent to the opposite party No.3 and the same was received on 24.2.2014 by it, but despite receiving the summons none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.3 before this Forum, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against it.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. The complainant submitted that he purchased one Samsung mobile handset model 7562 bearing IMEI No.354905055618658, 354906055618656 for Rs.13,200/- vide retail invoice No.2269 from the opposite party No.3, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 on dated 19.3.2013. The abovesaid mobile handset started giving problems regarding display, front case and other defects and the complainant got it repaired from the opposite party No.2 by paying the amount of Rs.2500/-, but the abovesaid mobile handset again started giving the problems and its jack (For charging) has been replaced twice, despite that it was working 50%. In the month of October, 2013 the opposite party No.2 updated the software of the abovesaid mobile handset and thereafter in the month of December, 2013, the opposite party No.2 changed its board, but despite repeated repairs, the mobile handset in question is not working properly as it is still not connecting the mobile calls.

7. There is no evidence placed on file by the complainant to prove that the opposite party No.2 has ever charged the amount of Rs.2500/- for the repair of the abovesaid mobile handset from him or its jack (For charging) and motherboard has been changed and there is no job sheet on file, thus the version of the complainant seems to be false as there is no receipt of Rs.2500/- placed on file. However, the fact remains that the mobile handset purchased by the complainant on dated 19.3.2013, became defective in the month of April, 2013 i.e. the very next month and there was problem relating to Jack (For charging), in his complaint as well as in his affidavit the complainant has specifically mentioned that the software has been updated in the month of October, 2013 and board has been charged in the month of December, 2013. If for the argument sake the version of the complainant is believed that the Jack has been replaced twice, software has been updated, motherboard has been changed, even then the complainant has given the amount of Rs.2500/-, but in the absence of any evidence regarding his averments, it cannot be believed that so many parts have been replaced, despite that the fact remains that the defect has occurred in the mobile handset in question and the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 were unable to rectify the same, due to this the complainant has to knock the doors of this Forum. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have also not placed on file any job sheet or any record to show that the mobile handset in question has ever been brought to them. However, being the service providers, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are liable to rectify the defect, if any, in the mobile handset in question.

8. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost, against the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.3. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to rectify the defect in the mobile handset in question free of cost as the mobile handset is within the warranty period when the alleged defect occurred in it and at the same time the complainant will sign the satisfaction note in this regard before receiving his mobile handset.

9. The compliance of this order be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

28-04-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member