BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.179 of 2016
Date of Institution : 21.07.2016
Date of Decision : 08.12.2016.
Pankaj Kumar aged about 36 years son of Shri Tarsem Chand, resident of H. No.499/1, Gali Bank of Baroda Wali, Suratgarhia Chowk, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazaar, Sirsa through its Proprietor.
2. M/s Platinum Services, Prakash Ratna Complex Street, Sirsa (Haryana)- 125055 (Samsung Authorized Service Centre), through its Manager/ Incharge Owner/ Authorized person.
3. Samsung India Private Ltd., 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, Gurgaon (Haryana) 122 002 through its Managing Director/ Authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….…PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL …… …MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.S. Bhaker, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for the opposite parties No.2 &3.
ORDER
Brief facts of the present complaint are that on 21.9.2015, he had purchased a New handset from opposite party no.1 model Samsung Galaxy E5 vide bill No.91615 for a sum of Rs.14,900/- with one year warranty. After some time, the mobile started giving troubles of automatically switched off, voice problem, heat etc. and on making his complaint to op no.1, op no.1 told him to contact op no.2. Accordingly, he approached op no.2 and made aware about the problems in the mobile at which op no.2 had taken the mobile with the assurance that problems will be removed and mobile will be handed over to him within a period of 10 days. A job sheet in this regard was also issued to him. Thereafter, the complainant kept on making rounds to op no.2 for a period of 10 days and op no.2 assured that mobile is in ok condition. However, after lapse of about a week, the mobile started giving same troubles and switched off automatically and could not be switched on. At that time op no.2 raised his hand by saying that same cannot be repaired and same is lying with complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, op no.1 replied that op no.1 sold the mobile to complainant in sealed and packed condition as received from distributor/ manufacturer and he is not responsible for any defect.
3. Ops No.2 & 3 replied that the answering ops provide prompt after sales service in warranty period provided no outside interference/ repair has been done to the handset and was not mishandled but no such service was issued by ops since outside interference/ repair was evident from the product thereby breaking the terms of the warranty. The complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product which cannot be determined on the simple submissions of complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. has a system to lodge online complaint with the system of answering op for each and every I.M.E.I/ Sr. No. but in the present complaint, as per limited details provided, no complaint has been found registered with answering op. The ops were and are still ready to repair the unit as per company policy. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
4. In evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1, job sheet Ex.C2. On the other hand, ops No.2 & 3 tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of warranty card Ex.R2. Whereas, ld. counsel for op no.1 made a statement that their reply be read in evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. It has been established on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 on 21.9.2015 for a sum of Rs.14,900/- as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C1. The complainant has alleged defects in the mobile in question within warranty period of one year and in this regard has placed on file copy of job sheet dated 20.6.2016 Ex.C2 which is issued by op no.2 in which defect of display blinking and hang problem are mentioned. It is not the case of any ops that set is working properly. The opposite parties No.2 & 3 have not produced any document in support of their version. From the job card Ex.C2, it is evident that mobile in question is having major defect of display and hanging.
7. Keeping in view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties jointly and severally either to replace the mobile of the complainant with a new one of same price and description or to refund the price of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.14,900/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 08.12.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
