DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 641 of 2016
Date of institution: 26.09.2016
Date of decision : 12.12.2017
Parvesh Bubber son of A.D. Bubber, resident of House No.866, Phase-4, Sector 59, Mohali (Punjab).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-1, Sector 81, Phase-2 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar (UP).
2. M/s. Mobile Solutions, SCO No.48, Phase-V, Mohali, Punjab.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Shri A.D. Bubber, authorised representative of the complainant.
Shri Tushar Arora, proxy counsel for Shri Sandeep Suri, counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 ex-parte.
ORDER
By Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Complainant Parvesh Bubber has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant had purchased ‘Samsung Galaxy J5’ Mobile from Reliance Retail Ltd., SSS 129-C, Phase -3B2, Mohali vide bill dated 11.11.2015 for Rs.12,018/-. The mobile was having warranty of one year. The complainant had spent Rs.200/- on screen guard and Rs.350/- for full cover so as to save it from any damage etc. in case of fall. The complainant then gifted this mobile to his father Shri A.D. Bubber. The father of the complainant was listening musical songs from the mobile when it all of sudden stopped functioning. Father of the complainant approached OP No.2 on 05.09.2016 and after examination of mobile set he informed that LCD had damaged and the complainant has to pay for its rectification. Father of the complainant told the OP No.2 that the mobile is within warranty and then OP No.2 asked him to take his mobile back. Thus, non repair of the mobile within the warranty is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to rectify the defect in the mobile and pay him adequate compensation for mental agony and harassment; refund the amount if the defect in the phone cannot be removed; suitable penalty for non retrieving important data and penalty for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
3. OP No.1 in the written statement has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complainant himself has stated in the complaint that the screen of the mobile has suffered physical damage and physical damage is not covered under warranty terms and conditions as was told to the complainant. The same is repairable on payment of costs. The complainant has refused to pay the expenses for the same. Thus, denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. None appeared for OP No.2 despite service of notice upon it. Thus, OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.01.2017.
5. In order to prove the case, the authorised representative tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copy of bill Ex.C-1, receipt Ex.C-2 and invoice Ex.C-3. In rebuttal, counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Amit Rana, Manager Ex.OP-1/1 and photograph Ex.OP-1.
6. We have heard the authorised representative of the complainant and proxy counsel for OP No.1 and have gone through the contents of file.
7. The complainant has purchased the mobile handset and then gave it to his father for use. During use, the mobile handset stopped working and then authorised representative of the complainant approached OP No.2, who informed him that the mobile will be repaired after payment of costs. The authorised representative of the complainant has alleged it as unfair trade practice as the purpose of warranty stood defeated if he has to pay costs for rectification. Then the complaint was filed and OP No.1 and 2 both were served but OP No.2 has chosen not to appear and contest the case despite service. OP No.1 has pleaded that the mobile handset has a physical damage and it is not covered under warranty and the mobile was not repaired as the complainant has refused to pay for it.
8. The authorised representative of the complainant has lead evidence Ex.C-2 which shows that OP No.2 has given him job sheet for his damaged mobile phone whereas Ex.C-3 shows that the authorised representative has got the mobile repaired for Rs.3110.33 from OP No.2 on 26.11.2016. The authorised representative of the complainant has grievance only for non repair of LCD of the mobile phone by OP No.2 without charging money but rather he himself has got repaired his mobile phone from OP No.2 by paying money/charges. The LCD of the mobile was broken and the authorised representative of the complainant visited OP No.2 and OP No.2 refused to repair it free of costs being out of warranty which is evident from Ex.C-2 the job sheet issued by OP No.2. As per the version of OP No.1, the LCD damage is physical damage and is not covered under warranty terms and conditions. Moreover, the authorised representative of the complainant has not placed on record warranty card to prove that the LCD damage was covered under warranty terms and conditions.
So keeping in view the above discussion, we hold that LCD damage is not covered under warranty period as authorised representative of the complainant failed to prove his case for want of warranty with respect to LCD damage. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 12.12.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput) President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
