DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.91 of 17-01-2014

Decided on 06-05-2014

Deepak Bansal aged about 22 years S/o Prem Kumar Bansal R/o # 677/1, Old Wadi Wali Gali, Deep Nagar, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda (Pb.), 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.

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

3.M/s Shivam Traders, Near Fire Brigade, Opp. Coffee Corner, 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.Deepak Bansal, complainant in person.

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

and 2.

Sh.Amandeep Singh, counsel for the opposite party No.3.

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 mobile handset model P-3100 bearing IMEI No.356262055758417 S/N RF1D56EQ5ND for Rs.16,018/- vide retail invoice No.309 from the opposite party No.3, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 with one year warranty on dated 29.6.2013. Soon after the purchase of the abovesaid mobile handset i.e. during the warranty period, it started giving the problems regarding display, front case colour and other defects. The complainant got repaired the abovesaid mobile handset from the opposite party No.2 vide token No.9811 dated 28.12.2013 and then on 3.1.2014 for hanging etc., but the abovesaid mobile handset was giving the problems. 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 inherent manufacturing defect and the opposite party No.2 declared so, but 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.16,018/- 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 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 hang is due to downloading and installation of the non-compatible mobile applications, games etc. leading to the software corruption. 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 nor 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. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 denied the purchase of the mobile handset in question, besides this they have also denied all the allegations levelled by the complainant in his complaint. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 further pleaded that from the facts mentioned in the complaint it is apparently clear that there is no such defect in the mobile handset in question that cannot be repaired or removed as such the complainant is not entitled for the replacement or refund of the price or cost and compensation.

3. The opposite party No.3 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and admitted the sale of the abovesaid mobile handset, but denied all the averments as the complainant never approached the opposite party No.3 with the complaint of any defect in the abovesaid mobile handset. The opposite party No.3 pleaded that the warranty on the mobile handset in question has been given on behalf of the opposite party No.1. The complainant is not entitled for the replacement of the abovesaid mobile handset from the opposite party No.3, rather he can get repair his mobile handset from the authorized service centre i.e. opposite party No.2.

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 mobile handset purchased by the complainant became defective soon after its purchase i.e. during the warranty period as it started giving problems regarding display, front case colour and other defects. The complainant got repaired the abovesaid mobile handset from the opposite party No.2 vide token No.9811 dated 28.12.2013 and then on 3.1.2014 for hanging etc., but the mobile handset in question has not been rectified. Again the complainant approached the opposite party No.2, but he has been conveyed that the mobile handset in question is beyond repair and suffered from the inherent manufacturing defect.

7. The submission of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is that the complainant has not alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect in the abovesaid mobile handset. The problem of hang is due to downloading and installation of the non-compatible mobile applications, games etc. leading to the software corruption. 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.

8. The opposite party No.3 submitted that after the purchase of the abovesaid mobile handset the complainant never approached it with the complaint of any defect in it and warranty has been given to the complainant on behalf of the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.1.

9. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the complainant has purchased the abovesaid mobile handset on dated 29.6.2013 and it became defective on 28.12.2013, which is evident from the Job Sheet dated 28.12.2013, Ex.C3, the nature of the complaint has been given in this job sheet as 'Don't display during video, network drops'. It seems that after the repair of the mobile handset in question on dated 28.12.2013, it was handed over to the complainant with some repair, but again it has been brought to the opposite party No.2 on dated 3.1.2014 in full warranty with front case colour problem and full details of the mobile handset in question has been recorded on the job sheet, Ex.C4. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have placed on file an affidavit of Sh.Shriniwas Joshi, Senior

Manager of Samsung India Electronics Private Limited on the same footings of their written statement and have placed on file Customer Details-Cum-Warranty Card, Ex.OP1/2, this is the copy of unfilled warranty card. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have stated that the warranty is not applicable in any of the following cases, from which the Condition No.1 is reproduced:-

“The warranty card is not filled and mailed back/submitted to the nearest authorized service center of the company within 2 weeks of purchase.”

A perusal of warranty card shows that neither it is filled by the dealer nor the signatures of the customer obtained on the warranty card. Moreover every product of the company like Samsung contains warranty card, which shows that the warranty starts from the date of purchase of the product in question for whichever period the same is given and it is duly mentioned in the warranty card that the services will be provided to the customers who have purchased the products subject to the warranty conditions from the manufacturer. Hence whether warranty card was filled or unfilled the same is binding on both the parties.

10. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 as they have failed to rectify the mobile handset in question despite repeated visits of the complainants. The evidence placed on file shows that the defect occurred in the abovesaid mobile handset within 6 months of its purchase. There were defects regarding display, network drops and front case colour. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation 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 refund the amount of Rs.16,018/- (As per Ex.C2) to the complainant and at the same time the complainant will handover the mobile handset in question alongwith its all accessories to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

11. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

12. In case of non-compliance, the amount of Rs.16,018/- will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization.

13. 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:-

06-05-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member