BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.274 of 2014

Date of Instt. 13.8.2014

Date of Decision :08.01.2015

Rajesh Sharma Advocate, son of Late Sh.Ved Parkash Sharma, R/o NC-155, Kot Kishan Chand, Jalandhar-144004.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2. M/s Chadha Mobile House Pvt.Ltd, through its Managing Director/Manager, Regd.Office:Mobile House, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar-144001.

3. M/s Shabd Enterprises, Samsung Service Centre, through its Prop/Partner/Manager, 193, Civil Lines, Sanjay Gandhi Market, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.AK Walia Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Visha Chaudhar Adv., counsel for Ops No.1 & 3.

Opposite party No.2 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite party No.1 is the representative of M/s Electronics Vietnam Co.Ltd, Yen Phong Industrial Park, 1, Yen Trung, Commune Yen Phong, District, BAC, 9th Province, Vietnam, the manufacturer of Samsung made mobile phone sets. Opposite parties are engaged in sales, after sales services and providing customer care to the general public for consideration particularly at Jalandhar with regards to the Samsung mobile phone sets. On the allurement from the advertisement of the opposite parties the complainant purchased a latest Samsung mobile phone set S7562 357730057184047 from opposite party No.2 vide retail invoice No.30410 dated 14.9.2013 for a sum of Rs.9500/-. The said mobile phone set carried a warranty for a period of one year from the date of its purchase. Just within the small period of three months the above said mobile phone set started giving problems of not charging. The complainant immediately approached the opposite party No.3 on 19.12.2013 and after removing the said problem the opposite party No.3 returned mobile with the assurance that now the said mobile will not give the problem and will function properly. Again on 4.1.2014 the said mobile set started giving problem in its functioning and then the complainant again visited the place of opposite party No.3 and lodged the complaint with the opposite party no.3 and again the opposite party No.3 returned the said mobile phone by giving assurance that now the said mobile phone will function properly. Once again due to manufacturing defect on 2.8.2014 the said mobile phone set started giving the same problem of charging and in its functioning and then the complainant again visited the place of opposite party No.3 and lodged the complaint with the opposite party No.3 and again the opposite party No.3 returned the said mobile phone by giving assurance that now the said mobile phone will function properly. Actually the opposite party No.3 despite efforts to set right the said Samsung mobile phone set S7562 357730057184047 failed to set right the same due to manufacturing defect. On such like averments alleging deficiency in service, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay him Rs.20,000/- as compensation.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 and 3 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that complainant has concealed the material and necessary information that the obligation of the answering opposite parties under warranty is to set right the mobile handset by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. The performance of the mobile phone depends upon the handling of the product. In the present case the handset has been mishandled while being used by the complainant or his family members as the charging jack was damaged twice. The charging jack is damaged when the handset is not properly connected with the charger or when the handset is used while the phone is connected with the charger. The liability of the answering opposite parties under the terms and conditions of the warranty is limited to the extent to set right the product by repairing or replacing the defective parts only subject to warranty terms and conditions. No such assurance to replace the handset is given by the answering opposite parties under the terms of the warranty and the complainant can not claim more than he has agreed. The complainant brought his handset to opposite party No.3 on 19.12.2013 with alleged problem of not charging. On inspection charging jack was found to be physically damaged. However, immediately charging jack was replaced with new one and handset was returned to complainant in OK condition to his satisfaction. Then again complainant brought his handset and charger to opposite party No.3 on 2.8.2014 with problem of not charging and again the problem was due to mishandling as explained above. However, the charging jack was replaced and handset was returned immediately in OK condition to complainant and to his satisfaction. The complainant was advised by the service engineer to handle the handset with care. This shows that there is no inherent defect in the handset. It is wrong and denied that due to manufacturing defect on 2.8.2014 mobile phone started giving problem of charging. It is correct that the complainant approached opposite party No.3 on 2.8.2014 with charging problem. On inspection by opposite party No.3 it was found that charging jack has been damaged. The damage to the charging jack was due to mishandling, however, charging jack was replaced and handset was immediately delivered back in OK condition to the satisfaction of complainant. The complainant was advised to handle the product with care and not to use the handset while it is connected with charger. Thus it is evidently clear that there is no manufacturing defect in the handset as alleged by the complainant. Moreover complainant has failed to adduce any evidence in support of his alleged allegations. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to C4 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 3 has tendered affidavits Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of opposite parties No.1 and 3 closed by order.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. It is not disputed that complainant has purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.2 vide retail invoice dated 14.9.2013 Ex.C2 for Rs.9500/-. According to the complainant soon after purchase the mobile handset started giving problem of not charging and he approached opposite party No.3 on 19.12.2013 and after removing the said problem the mobile handset was returned to him with the assurance that now it will function properly. Further according to the complainant, the mobile handset started giving problem in its function and he approached opposite party No.3 on 4.1.2014 and again opposite party returned the mobile handset after giving assurance that now it will function properly. Counsel for the complainant contended that due to manufacturing defect on 2.8.2014 the said mobile phone again started giving same problem of charging and complainant visited opposite party No.3 and again opposite party No.3 returned mobile handset after giving assurance that now it will functioning properly. He contended that thereafter the mobile handset started giving same problem besides other problems and opposite parties failed to set right the mobile handset. He further contended that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. On the other hand, according to contesting opposite parties, the problem in the handset was of charging jack which was due to mishandling of the set. According to the opposite parties, the charging jack is damaged when the handset is not properly connected with the charger or when the handset is used while phone is connected with the charger. He further contended that whenever the complainant approached the opposite party No.3, the charging jack was replaced and complainant was advised to use the handset properly. He further contended that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. He further contended that as per terms and conditions of the warranty, the liability of opposite parties is to repair or replace the defective parts only. We have carefully considered the version of both the parties. In para 3 of the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that within period of three months, the mobile phone started giving problem of not charging and he immediately approached the opposite party No.3 on 19.12.2013 and after removing the said problem the opposite party No.3 returned the mobile handset with the assurance that now it will not be giving problem. Then in para 5 of the complaint, he has pleaded that on 4.1.2014 the mobile set started giving problem in its functioning and then the complainant again visited the opposite party No.3 and again the opposite party No.3 returned the mobile phone by giving assurance that now it will function properly. Then in para 6 of the complaint, complainant has pleaded that due to manufacturing defect, on 2.8.2014 the mobile phone set started giving the same problem of charging, then the complainant again visited the opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.3 returned the mobile phone by giving assurance that now it will function properly. So whenever the complainant approached opposite party No.3, his complaint was duly attended to and charging jack was replaced by opposite party no.3. The complainant, according to his own version, after 4.1.2014 visited opposite party no.3 on 2.8.2014 meaning thereby that his mobile handset was working properly for 7 months. In case there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset of the complainant it would not have worked properly for 7 months. The complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. Although in para 7 of the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that mobile handset again started giving some problem of not charging besides other problems i.e sometime screen not working properly and opposite parties failed to set right the said mobile handset but the complainant has not produced any job sheet after the date of 2.8.2014. The last job sheet produced by him is dated 2.8.2014 Ex.C5. It is signed by the complainant and under his signature, it is specifically mentioned that he certifies that above job has been done to his satisfaction. In case after 2.8.2014 the mobile handset in question was giving same problem besides some other problems, he would have visited opposite party No.3 and must have obtained some job sheet from it. So in absence of any job sheet after 2.8.2014, the version of the complainant that mobile handset again started giving same problem besides problem of screen not working properly sometime can not be accepted. Moreover if there is any defect in his mobile handset, the opposite parties can rectify the same. In their written reply, opposite parties No.1 and 3 have pleaded that they or its service centre has never denied after sale service and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant.

8. So in the above circumstances, the complaint is partly accepted and complainant is directed to approach the opposite party No.3 and hand over its mobile to it and thereafter the opposite parties No.1 and 3 are directed to rectify the defect in the mobile handset of the complainant, if any free of cost. However, the complainant is granted Rs.2000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. 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

08.01.2015 Member President