THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Complaint No. 371-14
Date of Institution : 11.7.2014
Date of Decision : 11.03.2015
Avtar Singh son of S. Paramjit Singh, resident of 114, Ward No. 10, Gali Bhallian Wali, Majitha, Tehsil and Distt.Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
M/s. Samsung Service Request, SCO 31, Ist Floor, Nehru Shopping Complex, Amritsar through its Principal Officer/Manager
Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd., B-1, Sector 81, Phase 2, Noida Distt.Gautam Budh Nagar (UP) through its Managing Director/Principal officer
Sahil Gift Shop, Shop No.1, Opp.Parkash Plaza Market, Opposite Railway Station, Amritsar through its Manager/Proprietor/Partner/Principao Officer
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
-2-
Present : For the complainant : Sh. G.,S.MannAdv
For the opposite parties No1 & 3: Ex-parte
For Opposite party No.2 : Mrs. Preeti Mahajan,Adv.
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member & Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Avtar Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased mobile phone Samsung EMEI No. 356637057526815 vide invoice No. 3122 dated 7.9.2013 for Rs. 10300/-. According to the complainant immediately after the purchase of the mobile set it became defective having manufacturing problem as hanging/starting and networking auitomatically and virus inbuilt application gave virus. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 , authorized service centre on 25.5.2014 for resolving this problem in the mobile set of the complainant but they failed to resolve the problem. However, they kept the mobile set for two days. Thereafter on 3.6.2014 the complainant again deposited the mobile set with
-3-
opposite party No.1 and at that time, they assured the complainant that he will get mobilbe set after few days in running condition. On 9.6.2014 the complainant went to them but the same problems were still there in the mobile set. Then the complainant served legal notice dated 10.6.2014 on the opposite parties but despite that the opposite parties failed to remove the defect in the mobile set. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the sale price of the mobile hand set i.e. Rs. 10300/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the alleged problems in the handset of the complainant occured after 9 months of the purchase of the mobile in question i.e. on 25.5.2014 and the mobile was purchased on 7.9.2013. This shows that the handset has worked properly for 9 months and there is no inherent defect in the handset. It was submitted that the performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product apart from installation and downloading of various mobile applications, games and other software. In the present case the problem of hanging occured due to corruption of software due to installation of non compatible mobile applications and games resulting into hanging. The said problem was duly rectified and handset was delivered back to the complainant in OK condition. The liability of
-4-
the opposite party under the terms and conditions of the warranty is limited to the extent to set right the product by repairing or replacing the defective parts. It was submitted that as a goodwill gesture opposite party called upon the complainant to submit his handset with opposite party No.1 with prior intimation to opposite party No.2 to set right the same within reasonable time. Replying opposite party further requested this Forum to direct the complainant to submit his handset with opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 will set right the handset of the complainant and remove the defect, if any without any charges. Answering opposite parties are still ready to provide service to the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6.
4. Opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Shriniwas Joshi,Senior Manager Ex.OP2/1.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the complainant and opposite party No.2, arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for the complainant and opposite party No.2 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant and opposite party No.2 with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels for the complainant and opposite party No.2
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on
-5-
record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased mobile phone Samsung from opposite party No.3 vide invoice dated 7.9.2013 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs 10300/-. The complainant alleges that immediately after the purchase of the mobile set it became defective with problem of hanging/starting and networking auitomatically and virus inbuilt application gave virus. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 , authorized service centre on 25.5.2014 for resolving this problem in the mobile set of the complainant but they failed to resolve the problem. However, they kept the mobile set for two days. Thereafter on 3.6.2014 the complainant again deposited the mobile set with opposite party No.1 on 9.6.2014. The mobile set was returned to the complainant but the same problems were still there in the mobile set. Then the complainant served legal notice dated 10.6.2014 on the opposite parties but despite that the opposite parties failed to remove the defect in the mobile set. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 is that the problem arose to the handset of the complainant in May 2014. The complainant purchased the mobile set on 7.9.2013, so the problem occurred to the handset of the complainant after about 9 months of the purchase of the mobile in question. All this shows that handset has been mishandled by the complainant. There is no inherent defect in the handset. The problem of hanging as alleged by the complainant in the mobile set
-6-
occured due to corruption of software due to installation of incompatible mobile applications, games, etc.,. The said problem was duly rectified and handset was delivered back in OK condition to the satisfaction of the complainant. Oppsite party No.2 further submitted that as a goodwill gesture, opposite party No.2 called the complainant to submit his handset with oppsoite party No.1 with prior intimation to the opposite party No.2 and they would set right the mobile set of the complainant within reasonable time and the opposite party No.2 further requested this Forum to direct the complainant to submit his handset with opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 will set right the handset of the complainant and remove the defect, if any without any charges. Ld.counsel for opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased the mobile set in question from opposite party No.3 on 7.9.2013 vide invoice Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 10,300/-. The said mobile set became defective and the complainant handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.1 ,authorized service centre of Samsung Company, opposite party No.2 on 3.6.2014 vide job sheet dated 3.6.2014. Opposite party repaired the handset of the complainant and returned the same to the complainant after repair. But the mobile set has problems of hanging, restrat and net working problem. But the complainant could not produce any other job sheet that he approached opposite party No.1,
-7-
authorized service centre with any complaint in the mobile set. However, oposite party No.2 in their written version has stated that they are ready to repair the handset of the complainant or to remove the defect, if any in the mobile set without charging. The complainant could not produce any cogent evidence that the mobile set has manufacturing defect and is not repairable.
9. Resultantly this complaint is disposed of with the directions to the complainant
to hand over the mobile set to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 and 2 are directed to repair the mobile set of the complainant and to remove the defect, if any in the mobile set, to the satisfaction of the complainant, within 15 days from the date the complainant hands over the mobile set to opposite party No.1. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
10 Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy
pendency of the cases in this Forum.
11.3.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
