BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.194 of 2016
Date of Institution: 8.8.2016
Date of Decision: 12.04.2017
Sunil Kaswan son of Shri Bahadur Singh Kaswan, resident of H.No. 48, Gali No.1, MITC Colony, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its proprietor.
2. Samsung Service Centre, Behind Sri Bikaner Misthan Bhandar, Barnala Road, Sirsa, through its Manager.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi- 110 044, through its Manager.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT.
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ……….……MEMBER.
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE… MEMBER
Present: Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that on 29.7.2015 he purchased a brand new Samsung Galaxy Grand Prime mobile bearing IMEI No.356554067781985 and 356555067781982 for a sum of Rs.11,900/- vide bill no.89276 dated 29.7.2015 from opposite party no.1 with complete warranty of one year. In the month of April, 2016 the above said mobile developed defects i.e. problem of noise during making and receiving calls and less battery back up and used to hang time and again. The complainant visited the op no.2 being authorized service centre of op no.3 and reported the defects whereupon after inspection, the op no.2 refused to entertain the complaint of complainant by saying that the mobile is out of warranty. The complainant was highly surprised and shocked to hear this because he had purchased the mobile on 29.7.2015 and was given warranty against all manufacturing defects for a period of one year i.e. up to 28.7.2016. This way the ops are indulged in unfair trade practice and have caused deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement wherein it has been submitted that answering op supplied the set in intact/ packed condition. The complainant never approached to the answering op complaining any defect and there is no deficiency in service on the part of op no.1.
3. Ops No.2 & 3 replied that company provides one year warranty from the date of activation of the SIM in the unit and as per the activation date, warranty of the unit has expired on 10.5.2016. The complainant approached to the answering ops on 10.5.2016 with copy of bill dated 29.7.2015 and op no.2 put the details in the system of the company and found that the warranty of the unit has already expired due to SIM card activation and it was told to the complainant to bring original bill to prove the same as warranty of the unit has already expired and gave an estimate for repair but the complainant has refused to get the unit repaired on chargeable basis. Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice to the answering ops and reply was sent to the customer. The complainant has failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/ technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report. The ops were and are still ready to repair the unit as per company policy, so there is no deficiency on the part of answering ops.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipts Ex.C4 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, ops no.2 & 3 produced affidavit Ex.R1, copy of warranty card Ex.R2 and copy of service order detail information Ex.R3. Ld. counsel for op no.1 made a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.1 be read in evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. To support their above said version, the ops no.2 & 3 have placed on file copy of service order detail information as Ex.R3 in which purchase date of mobile in question is mentioned as 23.2.2015 but this is the purchase date of mobile by dealer and not by the complainant. The complainant purchased the mobile in question from the op no.1 on 29.7.2015 for a sum of Rs.11,900/- as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C2 and therefore, from 29.7.2015 the warranty period of one year is to be counted. So the version of the ops no.2 & 3 has no force and is hereby repelled. Since the ops no.2 and 3 have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant within warranty period and he has to file complaint and a long period has already passed but ops no.2 and 3 have even failed to examine the mobile that what defect occurred in the mobile, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that ops are liable to replace the mobile in question with a new one.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile in question with a new one of same description or with a mobile of equivalent value or to refund Rs.11,900/- i.e. cost of the mobile to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.11,900/- at the rate of @9% per annum from the date of order till actual compliance/ payment. All the ops are held jointly and severally liable to comply this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:12.4.2017. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
