Haryana

Ambala

CC/434/2017

Sushma Achint - Complainant(s)

Versus

Music Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Bhanu Partap Singh

15 Oct 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 434 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 07.12.2017                                                                         

                                                          Date of decision    : 15.10.2018

 

 

Sushma Achint w/o Rakesh Achint r/o 196, Sanik Vihar, Jandli Ambala City.

    ……. Complainant.

 

 

1.  Music Centre, SCO1 Ambala Club Shopping Complex, Model Town, Ambala City through its authorized Signatory.

 

2.  Samsung authorized Service Centre Cross RD-8, Mochi Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Sadar, Haryana.

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd.  Cross RD-8, Mochi Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Sadar, Haryana.

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member

                   Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

                  

         

Present:        Sh. Anukush Gupta, counsel for complainant.

 Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for OP Nos.2 & 3.

 OP No.1 already ex-parte v.o.d.17.01.2018.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant has purchased the new mobile marked “Samsung J7 PRO” from the OP No.1 bearing IMEI No.358674082755786 after the payment of Rs. 20,900/- inclusive of all taxes vide Invoice No.951 dated 08.10.2017 with one year warranty. In the first week of November 2017, suddenly the display of the mobile, purchased by the complainant started showing some changes in colour of display and thereafter  in just 10 days  the colour of the display  turned into a dark black and blue colour, due to which the complainant started facing problem in using the Phone. It is further submitted  that the Finger  Censor of the phone is also not properly responding smoothly during its regular course of use. On advised of OP No.1, the complainant contacted the customer care centre of the Samsung  Mobile i.e. OP No.2 and told about the manufacturing defect of the mobile, but the complainant astonished to hear  the reply  of the officials of the Customer Care Centre of OP No.2 that the problem in the Mobile is not the manufacturing defect and the same is also not covered under the warranty  and further told the complainant that the mobile can be repaired on the estimate price of Rs. 5,500/- on account of repair charges. The officials of the OP No.2 refused to entertain  the complaint of the complainant and asked the complainant to went to Ambala City  office for repair and when the complainant went to Samsung Ambala City office who linger on the matter and refused to accept the set of the complainant. There is a deficiency in the service on the part of  all Ops. The complainant has suffered great mental pain and agony. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Registered notices issued to Op No. 1 but none has turned up on his behalf and OP No. 1was proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 17.01.2018 and Upon notice, OP Nos.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable, not come with clean hands, no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. On merits, OP Nos. 2 & 3 stated that they have a system to lodge on line compliant, as per limited details provided, no complaint has been found registered with the OP Nos. 2 & 3. They also submitted that company provides one year  warranty  on the unit, warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy and the warranty of the unit and Op No.2 & 3 are always ready to provide services as per warranty policy.Thus, there is no deficiency of the service on the part of the Op Nos.2 & 3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered affidavits as Annexure C-A & C-B along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-2 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP Nos.2 & 3 tendered affidavits as Annexure R-X, R-Y & R-Z alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 & R-2 and close their evidence.

4.                We have heard both the counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                It is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the Samsung J7 pro from OP No.1 bearing IMEI No.35867408275586 after payment of Rs. 20,900/- vide Annexure C-1 dated 08.10.2017. Main grievance of the complainant that in the first week of November 2017, suddenly the display of the mobile, purchased by the complainant started showing some changes in colour of display and thereafter, in just 10 days the colour of the display turned into a dark black and blue colour, due to which the complainant started facing problem in using the Phone. The complainant has further alleged that the approached to OP No.2 for rectification of defect of the mobile in question but OP No.2 has given the estimate for repair Rs. 5,500/- and same is not covered under the warranty.

6.                In support of his case, the complainant has produced the inspection report Annexure C-2 given by HI Tech Institute for mobile technology and technical man Parveen Kumar has mentioned in the report that there is some technical and manufacture defect in the said mobile and he found that there is no physical damage in the mobile and display started changing the colour and dark spot has appeared which may increased day to day and it might be covered fully display.

7.                Counsel for the Op Nos.2 & 3 moved an application for permission to cross examination of Parveen Kumar who has given the report Annexure C-2 in favour of the complainant and same was allowed. In the cross examination, the technician has admitted that “I have seen the mobile set in the Forum and display of the mobile is in the running condition”. On the other hand, the counsel for the OP No.2 & 3 also has tendered the affidavit of their technician of Service Centre  and same was cross examined by the counsel for the complainant and he categorically stated that the LCD part of the mobile has been changed free of cost. Even as per the Annexure R-2 job card issued by the service centre it is clear that the LCD replaced set made OK.

8.                At the time of argument, the counsel for the complainant has stated that mobile in question still is not in working condition and even after replacement of the LCD. The expert of the complainant was examined on 14.08.2018 and categorically admitted in cross examination that he has seen the mobile in question and display of mobile is in running condition. If we presume that mobile in question is not working condition after replacement of LCD on 08.03.2018 as per the job-sheet Annexure R-2. The complainant should brought the mobile in question before the technician who was examined by the OP Nos.2 & 3 on 09.10.2018 and cross examination by the complainant and this Forum can also put the question to the technician whether the set in question having any defect but complainant has failed to produce the mobile in question in Forum nor rebutted the evidence of the technician who was examined on 09.10.2018 on behalf of the OPs.

9.                In view of the above discussion we are the view that the complainant has failed to prove his case by way of leading the cogent evidence. Hence the present complaint is devoid of any merits.  Accordingly, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :15.10.2018

 

 

 

 

      (Pushpender Kumar)        (Dr. Sushma Garg)       (D.N. ARORA)

          Member                            Member                 President