BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint Case no.53 of  2016       

                                                          Date of Institution:   10.2.2016

                                                          Date of Decision:     21.10.2016

Ankish Kumar son of Shri Satish Kumar, resident of Begu Road, Street No.4, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. M/s S.S. Communication, Street Geeta Bhawan Wali, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Prop./ Incharge/ Authorized person.

2. Platinum Services, Prakash Ratna Complex street, Service centre, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Authorized/ Responsible person.

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Coop. Industrial Estate, New Delhi- 110044, India through its Director/ Authorized person.

                                                                                   ……… Opposite parties.

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

   Before:              SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

                             SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.

Present:                     Sh. P.S. Chauhan, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3.

Opposite party no.1 exparte. 

ORDER

                    In brief, case of complainant is that he purchased one mobile set make Samsung Model Galaxy A5-A500 from opposite party no.1 on 9.4.2015 for a sum of Rs.24,900/- vide invoice No.4535 dated 9.4.2015 with warranty of one year. On 1.7.2015, the complainant faced the problem of non-charging and hanging in the mobile. The complainant approached the op no.1 who checked the mobile and found the said defects in the mobile and then op no.2 kept the mobile set. Thereafter, the mobile was handed over to him by op no.2 by stating that mobile is ok. However, even after repair, the mobile was not working properly and complainant faced the major problem as front and rear camera of mobile was not working. The complainant again approached op no.1 who stated that these problems are out come of the manufacturing defect in the mobile. Then he approached the op no.2 and they stated that they would get replaced the mobile from the company and kept the mobile set vide job sheet No.4203746278 dated 1.11.2015 but op no.2 failed to redress the grievance of complainant and handed over the set back to the complainant with the reporting that problem in the camera has been removed and now there would be no problem in the mobile. Thereafter, the complainant faced the display and battery problem in the mobile and mobile has been rendered as dead stock and the matter was reported to ops no.1 & 2. The op no.2 again kept the mobile with it and assured that they would get replaced it from the company within a week and issued job sheet dated 5.2.2016 but same was not replaced, rather the same mobile was handed over to him and since then same is lying with the complainant as dead stock. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, none appeared on behalf of op no.1 despite service and therefore, op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.

3.                Ops no.2 & 3 appeared and contested the case by filing reply asserting therein that answering ops as a matter of policy issue prompt after sales service in warranty period provided no outside interference/ repair has been done on the handset and outside interference/ repair was evident from the product. The complainant approached the op no.2 vide complaint no.4197033304 and 4203746278 with some problem in the unit and every time solution was provided to the complainant and repaired the unit to the satisfaction of the complainant. The company provides one year warranty on the unit and warranty means in case of any problem the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per company policy. The warranty of the unit becomes void in case of liquid logged/water logging, physically damage, serial no. missing, tampering or mishandling/ burnt etc. The ops were and are still ready to repair the unit as per company policy and there is no deficiency on the part of answering ops.

4.                In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2 and copy of job sheet dated 5.2.2016 Ex.C3. On the other hand, ops no.2 & 3 tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of warranty card Ex.R2.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for ops no.2 & 3 and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                The complainant has purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 on 9.4.2015 as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C2. There is nothing on file to presume that mobile set is having manufacturing defect. There is only one copy of job sheet dated 5.2.2016 Ex.C3 placed on file whereby the complainant reported the defect of display and problem. However, some wear and tear after use of the mobile for such a long period cannot be said to be manufacturing defect and the ops No.2 & 3 are ready to repair the mobile in question as per warranty. Therefore, the opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile in question and to make it defect free after replacement of parts, if any free of costs within a period of one month subject to production of mobile set in question by the complainant. The present complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.                                            President,

Dated:21.10.2016.                                      Member.   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.