DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/196/2022

Date of Institution : 12.08.2022

Date of Decision : 20.01.2023

M/s Sangrur Maruti Centre, Patiala Road, Sangrur through its Partner Mahesh Malhotra. 

…Complainant

Versus

1. New Ashoka Electricals Store, Handiaya Bazar, Near Aggarwal Dharamshala, Barnala through its Authorized Signatory. 

2. Kamlesh Telecom, Gaushalla Road, Samsung Service Centre, Opposite Main Bus Stand, Barnala through its Authorized Signatory.

3. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurugram its MD/CEO.

...Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Present: Sh. Anuj Mohan Adv counsel for complainant.

Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 exparte.

Sh. Chander Bansal Adv counsel for opposite party No. 3.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI MEMBER):

    The complainant filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against New Ashoka Electricals Store, Barnala and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant firm purchased the mobile phone Model Samsung Galazy S22 bearing IMEI No. 357187980045813 vide invoice dated 7.3.2022 for an amount of Rs. 98,000/- from the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 is authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 3. The opposite parties had given warranty of said mobile set for one year. The partner of the complainant firm namely Mahesh Malhotra is using the said mobile set for his personal use. 

3. It is further alleged that from the beginning the said mobile set is not working property and there was often problem of hanging in the mobile set and do not catch the network of the network provider. The battery back up of the said mobile set is very poor. As per company specifications the daily life of the battery is 15-16 hours but battery used to discharge within 5-6 hours. Whenever complainant visited the opposite parties they started making lame excuses that there may be more use of mobile set so why the battery discharged earlier and mobile hangs due to software and gave installed in the mobile set and also used to say that there may be problem in network and advised to change the network provider. 

4. It is further alleged that in the month of August 2022 the said mobile set started giving another problem of Heat Up which disturb the complainant too much and creates problem. The complainant visited authorized service centre i.e. opposite party No. 2 on 10.8.2022 to get the problem sort out. The opposite party No. 2 returned the mobile set to the complainant and told that the set has repaired and all the problems have been rectified. The complainant demanded the job sheet but opposite party told that there was minor defect in the mobile set so there is no need of job sheet. But the problem of Handset Heat Up remains the same also given the problems of battery backup and network. The complainant again visited the service centre on 12.8.2022 and opposite party again checked the mobile set in question and told that they made every effort to remove the problems but mobile set has manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified. The complainant demanded the job sheet but opposite party No. 2 refused to issue the same this time. The mobile set suffered from manufacturing defect which could not remove despite their  efforts. The complainant also got checked the defective mobile from another Engineer who also told that the mobile has manufacturing defect. The complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile set with new one as it is within guarantee period but they refused to replace the same which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to refund the purchase amount of the said mobile phone i.e. Rs. 98,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization. 

2) To pay Rs. 25,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 3 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the handset of the complainant seems to have no defect and is perfectly working as complainant has never submitted his handset with authorized service centre prior to filing of the present complaint. The exact problem if any in the handset can be ascertained only after inspection by the technical expert and whether said defect is covered under warranty or not can also be ascertained by the said expert. The complainant has filed the present complaint to take benefit of his own wrong by concealing true facts. The complaint is bad for mis joinder of parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties. The complainant till date has never approached or submitted his handset in question with the authorized service centre with any kind of defect. The answering respondent never denied for after sales services and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant subject to condition of the handset in question after inspection by the technical Engineer. The performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the mobile set. The liability of the answering respondent is subject to terms and conditions of the warranty as mentioned in the warranty card supplied with the product at the time of sale. The complainant neither alleged any specific ir-repairable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor file any documentary evidence i.e. report of an independent expert and in the absence of any qualified independent expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed. No cause of action arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint.  

5. On merits, it is denied that the complainant firm has purchased the mobile set in question from the opposite party No. 1.  Rest of the submissions also denied by the opposite party No. 3 in their written version. They further submitted that as and when any customer visit the service centre with any kind of problem in his handset the service centre after receiving the handset prepare a computer generated job sheet and all the details of the customer and handset and problem faced by the customer is mentioned in the job sheet. The customer is made aware about the problem in the handset and then mobile phone is rectified. In the present case there is no repair history of the mobile phone in question as complainant never submitted his handset for repair with opposite party No. 2. From the facts it seems that handset in question has been mishandled by the complainant or handset is perfectly working. The complainant to cover up his negligence has concocted a false story. Rest of the submissions mentioned in the complaint are denied by the opposite party No. 3 and submitted the same facts as mentioned in the preliminary objections so there is no need to repeat the same. Lastly the opposite party No. 3 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

6. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 preferred to remain exparte. 

7. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, copy of invoice Ex.C-2, affidavit of Baldev Kumar Ex.C-3, affidavit of Damanjit Singh Ex.C-4, copy of report Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.

8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 3  tendered in evidence affidavit of Deepak Kumar Ex.OP-3/1, affidavit of Sandeep Sahijwani Ex.OP-3/2, copy of warranty card Ex.OP-3/3 and and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No. 3. 

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. 

10. It is proved by the complainant that he purchased the mobile set manufactured by opposite party No. 3 from opposite party No. 1 vide bill dated 7.3.2022 Ex.C-2 for Rs. 98,000/-. It is not denied by the  opposite party No. 3 that the mobile set has warranty of one year from the date of purchase. It is proved on the file vide affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 that the mobile set got defective from the beginning of its purchase and it has problem of hanging, battery backup is poor and not catch the network. The complainant visited the service centre of the opposite party No. 3 i.e. opposite party No. 2 on 10.8.2022 and 12.8.2022 but they have not issued any job sheet and not repaired the mobile set of the complainant. Even on 12.8.2022 the opposite party No. 2 admitted that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set but refused to issue the job sheet.  

11. We have perused all the documents carefully. The main objection of the opposite parties is that the complainant never approached or submitted his handset in question with the authorized service centre with any kind of defect, so there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. But to prove this objection the opposite parties have not filed report or affidavit of any expert/technical who deposed that the mobile set was not having any manufacturing defect. To rebut this objection of the opposite party No. 3 the complainant filed the affidavit of Baldev Kumar Ex.C-3 who deposed in his affidavit that on 10.8.2022 he alongwith his friend Mahesh Malhotra complainant visited the authorized service centre i.e. opposite party No. 2  and service centre repaired the mobile set and returned the same to the complainant. The complainant demanded the job sheet from the service centre but they told that there is minor defect in the mobile set therefore there is no need of job sheet. He further deposed in his affidavit that on 12.8.2022 he again visited the service centre with the complainant and opposite party No. 2 again checked the mobile set in question and told that they have made every effort to remove the problems but mobile set has manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified. The complainant demanded job sheet but opposite party No. 2 refused to issue the same this time. The opposite party No. 3 also not rebutted the affidavit of the Baldev Kumar Ex.C-3. So, from the affidavit of Baldev Kumar Ex.C-3 it is proved on the file that the complainant approached the service centre of the opposite party No. 3 i.e. opposite party No. 2 on 10.8.2022 and 12.8.2022 to remove the defect in the mobile set but on both times they have not issued any job sheet to the complainant.  

12. Further, to prove the manufacturing defect the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Damanjit Singh Proprietor of Singh Connectivity, Sangrur Ex.C-4 and his report dated 12.8.2022 Ex.C-5. In his report and affidavit the said expert deposed that he has been running his mobile repairing shop for the last 12 years and passed a course of mobile repairing. He further mentioned in his report that on 12.8.2022 complainant came to his office for the checking of his mobile i.e. mobile phone model Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra Bearing IMEI No. 357187980045813. He checked the mobile set for an hour and found the handset was given the problem of Heat Up, Battery Back Up and Network. He got checked the said mobile phone and same has suffered with manufacturing defect which is not repairable. So, from the affidavit of expert Ex.C-4 and report Ex.C-5 it is proved on the file that the mobile in question is having manufacturing defect which cannot be repaired. The opposite parties have taken the opportunities to tender the evidence and they can easily rebut the expert evidence in their evidence but the expert report produced by the complainant is un-rebutted. In our view also the expert evidence is necessary to prove manufacturing defect in the mobile set and complainant tendered expert evidence to prove defect in the mobile set, so it is proved on the file that the mobile set in question is having manufacturing defect. 

13. On the perusal of the file it established that the opposite party No. 1 is the seller of mobile set in question. The seller is acting an Agent of the opposite party No. 3. Therefore, there is no liability arisen of opposite party No. 1 for any defect in the mobile set. In this way, by not replacing the mobile set of the complainant which is having manufacturing defect is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties No. 2 and 3. 

14. In view of the above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and opposite parties No. 2 and 3 are directed to refund the costs of the mobile set amounting to Rs. 98,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of purchase of mobile set i.e. 7.3.2022 till its actual realization. The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 are also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as costs and litigation expenses. However, the complainant is also bound to return the defective mobile set alongwith box at the time of receiving the above said payment. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        20th Day of January 2023

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member