THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 626 of 14
Date of Institution : 1.12.2014
Date of Decision : 19.05.2015
Sandeep Singh son of Tarsem Singh resident of 1287, Gali No.1, Mohkampura Batala Road, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
M/s. Mobile Spot, Shop No. 9 First Floor, Nehru Shopping Complex, Lawrence Road, Amritsar through its Principal Officer/Prop/Partner/Person authorized to receive the summons
Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd. YP Enterprises Shop No.3, Deep Complex, Opposite Doaba Automobiles Amritsar through its Principal Officer/Incharge/Person authorized to receive the summons
M/s. Samsung through its Director/Principal Officer IInd Floor, Tower C Vipul Tech Old Golf Road Sector 43, Gurgaon Haryana
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : In person
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh. Munish Kohli, Advocate
For the opposite party No. 3 : Smt. Preeti Mahajan,Advocate
For the opposite party No.2 : Ex-parte
-2-
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Sandeep Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased mobile Samsung Grand II G 7102 vide bill No. 89 dated 30.9.2014 for a sum of Rs. 18400/-. According to the complainant, immediately after the purchase of the set, it started giving problem such as switch off/on frequently and automatically. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 29.10.2014 and they updated the software . Complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 on 3.11.2014 and they replaced the display and then on 10.11.2014 and at that time they replaced the mother board. But even then problem remains the same in the mobile set. Thereafter complainant made several request to opposite party No.1 to replace the same or refund the price of the mobile set, but opposite party did not listen the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to replace the mobile set or in the alternative to refund the cost of the same i.e. Rs. 18400/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant had purchased the mobile set from opposite party No.1 after his full satisfaction. It was submitted that after the sale of the set , opposite party No.1 is not liable for any service. If there is any kind of defect in the set, only the authorized service centre is liable to repair the same and if there is any manufacturing defect, only the company is liable for its replacement or refund. Even otherwise the complaint is not according to law. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.2 did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 8.1.2015.
4. Opposite party No.3 did not file written version despite affording of so many opportunities and as such the case was adjourned for evidence of the complainant.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the complainant and opposite party No.1 arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and opposite parties No.1 & 3 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant and opposite parties No.1 & 3 with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the complainant and opposite paerty No.1 and the evidence produced on record by the complainant and opposite parties No.1 & 3, it is clear that complainant purchased Samsung Grand mobile vide invoice dated 30.9.2014 Ex.C-5 for a sum of Rs. 18400/- from opposite party No.1. The complainant alleges that the said mobile did not function properly and it started giving problem of switch off/on automatically. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of opposite party No.3 on 29.10.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C-2, who updated some software . But even then it did not function properly. Then complainant approached opposite party No.2 on 3.11.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C-4. Then the opposite party No.2 replaced the display . But even then the mobile set did not function properly. The complainant approached opposite party No. 2 again on 10.11.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C-3. Then opposite party No.2 replaced the mother board of the mobile set. But inspite of that the defect of the mobile remains the same and it did not function properly. The complainant submitted that the opposite party neither repaired the mobile set nor replaced the same. All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of opposite party No.1 is that he is the dealer and sold the mobile set in question to the complainant . The warranty of the mobile phone is to be provided by the company service provider. It has also been clearly mentioned that bill Ex.C-5 that warranty of mobile phone is to be provided by the company and not by the opposite party No.1 . So ld.counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of opposite party No.3 as per affidavit of Sh. Shriniwas Joshi , Senior Manager of opposite party No.3 Ex.OP3/1 is that the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 29.10.2014 vide invoice Ex.C-2 with software problem and the opposite party updated the software and made the handset fully functional. Then the complainant approached the opposite party on 3.11.23014 and on 10.11.2014 vide job sheets Ex.C-3 and C-4 with problem of auto on/off, screen gets blue. Opposite party No.2 duly replaced the display and mother board of the mobile and delivered the same to the complainant in OK condition to the satisfaction of the complainant . After 10.11.2014 the complainant never visited opposite party No.2 with any kind of problem. The complainant has neither lodged any specific irrepairable manufacturing defect or inferior quality of any part of the product nor filed any report of expert/mechanic/Lab to prove that the mobile set is not repairable. The replacmenet or refund is only permissible where defect developed during the period of warranty is of such a nature that it cannot be cured or repaired. Opposite party No.3 ,therefore, submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.3 qua the complainant regarding the mobile set in question.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased Samsung Mobile set on 30.9.2014 for a sum of Rs. 18400/- from opposite party No.1 vide invoice Ex.C-5. The said set became defective and the complainant approached opposite party No.2, authorized service centre on 29.10.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C-2 with problem of auto on/off . Resultantly opposite party No.2 updated the software . But even then the mobile set did not function properly. Then the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 on 3.11.2014 Ex.C-4 with problem of display blink, get blue, auto start/off. Resultantly opposite party No.2 replaced the display of the mobile set. But even then the mobile set did not functional properly. Then again the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 10.11.2014 vide job shet Ex.C-3 with same problem of auto on/off, screen gets blue. Then opposite party No.2 replaced the mother board of the mobile set and handed over the same to the complainant. But even then the mobile set did not function properly. Then the complainant lodged complaint with opposite party No.1 vide e-mail copy of which is Ex.C-6. But opposite party No.1 neither submit any reply to the complainant nor made any effort to set right the mobile set of the complainant. The complainant purchased the mobile set for Rs. 18400/- on 30.9.2014 and within a period of less than two months the said mobile set went to the service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 thrice and opposite party No.2 had to change its software, mother board and display but even then the mobile set did not function properly and it had been giving the same problem of switch off/on automatically and screen gets blue. Even the opposite parties No.2 & 3 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant made by the complainant through e-mail Ex.C-6 and the complainant filed the present complaint within a period of three months from the date of purchase of mobile set. All this fully prove that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable . It is not necessary that the complainant should bring on record the report of any expert to prove that the mobile set is not repairable.
10. Resultantly we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party No.3 is directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make or model or to refund the price of the same within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order ; failing which complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party No.3 is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
19.05.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
