Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/46

JASVIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREET ELECTRONICS THROUGH ITS PROP SANDEEP SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

GAGANPREET SINGH,ADV

31 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                            Consumer Complaint No. :  46 of 05.09.2016

                                               Date of decision           : 31.03.2017

 

 

Jasvir Singh, son of Late Harbans Singh, aged about 57 years, resident of House No. 2924/7-A, Malohtra Colony Gali No. 1, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar (Pb.)

 

                                                                                        ....Complainant

 

                                                    Versus

 

1.   Preet Electronics, Shop No.3, Opposite Jaggi Medical Store, Partap Bazar Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through its Prop. Sandeep Singh.

2.   Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Estate New Delhi through its M.D.

3.  Tilak Raj Prop. Manager of Customer Care Services VH Enterprises SCO No.28, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar Tehsil & District Rupnagar, authorized service centre of Samsung Mobile India.

 

                                                                                      ...Opposite Parties

 

 

                              Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer

                              Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

 

                     MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                     SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

                    Sh. Amandeep Saini Advocate, counsel for complainant 

                    Sh. Inderpal Vohra, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party No.1

                    Sh. Chetan Kumar Gupta, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party             No.2

                    Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte

 

 

ORDER

 

                               MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

                    Sh. Jasvir Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-

                     1)      To replace the said mobile set with the new one as on the                                    same is warranty period    

                    2)      To pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for unnecessary                                 harassment faced by him

                    3)      To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses,

 

2.       In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung  Galaxi E-7 Mobile set, for a sum of Rs.16,700/- from O.P. No.1 vide bill No.855 dated 15.09.2015. After few months of its purchase, it started giving problem as it use to hanged. On 09.08.2016, the touch screen of the mobile set became un-operative, whole screen of the mobile set became black and after that it switched off. He reported the matter to O.P. No.1, who after inspection, returned the mobile set to him and directed him to take the mobile set to the service centre i.e. O.P. No.3. Accordingly, he approached the O.P. No.3, whose technician after inspection of the same, told him that its touch screen had stopped working but he refused to repair the same free of cost and asked him to pay Rs.8000/-. He requested the said technician to rectify the problem of the mobile set free of cost as it became defective within warranty period, but he refused to repair it free of cost. Even, he refused to issue the job sheet. He served a legal notice upon the O.Ps. but the they had not replied the same. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On being put to the notice, the learned counsel for O.P. No.1 have filed written version taking preliminary objection; that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum; that the complainant has only filed this complaint just to harass the O.P. no.1 as the O.P. No.1 has cooperated with the complainant to the best possible extent to which he can.; that the O.P. No.1 has conducted the fair trade practice and has always given satisfactory reply and services to the complainant. On merits, the O.P. No.1 admitted the factum of purchase of the mobile set by the complainant from it. Since, the screen of the mobile set of the complainant had broken and the said mobile set is out of warranty. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with costs.

4.        The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 have also filed written version taking preliminary objection; that the complaint of the complainant is baseless, devoid of any merits whatsoever and without any cause of action whatsoever against the answering O.P.; that this Hon’ble Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands; that the complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich him at the cost of the answering O.P. by filing frivolous claim; that the present complaint is without any just to reasonable cause, and is an abuse of the process of law, misuse of the machinery provided for redressal of genuine grievances. On merits, it is stated that the Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd. has a system to lodge online complaint with the system of answering O.P. for each and every I.M.E.I/Sr. No. but in the present complaint, as per limited details provided, no complaint has been found registered with the answering O.P. in this regard to unit of the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The O.P. company is renowned company and has established a number of service centers across the country to provide after sale services to its customers if there is any issue regarding the unit the complainant may approach any of the service centre but rather that, the complainant without any cause of action has filed the present complaint. Neither, the complainant is entitled for replacement of the mobile set nor any other relief. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with costs.
5.                 None having put an appearance on behalf of O.P. No.3, he was           proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.10.2016.

6.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the     complainant tendered affidavit of complainant, Ex.C1 along   with documents Copy of Bill dated 15.09.2015 Ex.C2, Copy of    Postal Receipts  Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, copy of Legal Notice ExC6         and closed the evidence. On the other         hand, the learned counsel     for the O.P. No.1 tendered affidavit of Sandeep Singh, son   of Bhajan Singh, Proprietor of Preet Electronics Ex.OP1/A and          closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 tendered affidavit           of Sh. Anindya Bose, Ex.OP2/A along with         Copy of instructions Ex.OP2/B           and closed the evidence.

7.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

8.                  The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from the O.P. No.1 vide bill dated 15.09.2015 as is evident from Ex.C2 got defective on 09.08.2016 (within warranty period). The O.P. No.2 was admitted in its written version that one year warranty provided by the company to the customers. The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the mobile set in question was within warranty period. The mobile set started giving problem and got hanged time and again. The touch screen of the mobile set became un-operative, whole screen of the mobile set became black and after that it switched off. The complainant reported the matter to the O.P. No.1, who after inspection, returned the mobile set to him and directed the complainant to take the mobile set to the service centre i.e. O.P. No.3. After inspection the mobile set in question, the O.P. No.3 told him that the touch screen of the mobile set in question stopped working and demanded Rs.8000/- for its repair. It is further alleged that the screen of the mobile set in question has not been broken. The job sheet was not issued to him by the O.P. No.3. The complainant requested the O.P. No.3 that the mobile set in question is in warranty period and it is the duty to change the same with the new one or to repair but the O.P. No.3 refused to do so. Therefore, the O.Ps. be directed either to replace the defective mobile set with a new one or to repair the same. They be also directed to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment along with litigation expenses.

9.                The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 submitted that in the retail invoice/bill dated 15.09.2015, Ex.C2, it is categorically written that- "Warranty of mobile will be provided by the company Authorized service Centre." Since the warranty for the said mobile set has been given by the authorized service centre, on behalf of manufacturer and if it got defective, then the repair has to be done by the O.P. No.2, only and not by the O.P. No.1, who is merely seller, therefore, the complaint filed against it be dismissed with cost.

10.              The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 vehemently argued that the complaint is baseless, devoid of merits and without any cause of action and without jurisdiction. The Samsung India electronic limited have a system to lodge online complaint. The company provides one year warranty on the unit, warranty means in case of any problem with the unit. It is further submitted that without prejudice to the objections as to maintainability of the complaint, otherwise, the O.P. company is still ready and will to repair the same. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.2. It is, prayed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed against O.P. No.2.  

11.              Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from the O.P. No.1, who in lieu of that issued a bill/invoice dated 15.09.2015 as is evident from Ex.C2. The mobile set in question was within warranty period at the time of filing of the present complaint. The warranty/guarantee provided by the manufacturer i.e. O.P. no.2 and seller i.e. O.P. No.1 is not responsible for the same. Being an authorized service centre, O.P. No.3, its duty to provide requisite service to the customers. In the present case, inspite of receipt of notice of this complaint from this Forum, the O.P. No.3 had neither preferred to appear and contest the case nor had any effort to redress the grievance of the complainant, which amounts to deliberate omission on its part. Thus, we held that the O.P. No.3 is deficient in regarding service. The O.P. Nos.2 & 3 are not only liable to repair the mobile set in question but are also liable to pay the compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with litigation expenses.

 

                            So far as the complaint filed against the O.P. No.1 is concerned, if, after sale of the mobile set in question, some defect(s) had occurred in it, then as per warranty, it was the duty of the O.Ps. No.2 & 3 to remove the defect(s) occurred in it either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s), and not of the O.P. No.1, who had only sold the mobile set to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint filed against the O.P. No.1 is liable to be dismissed.

 

12.                       In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint against O.P. No.1, and partly allow the same against the O.Ps. No.2 & 3, who are directed as under:-

                   1.       To repair/replace the defective part(s) free of cost.

                   2.       To pay Rs. 3000/- as compensation.

                   3.       To pay Rs.2000 as litigation.

 

                            The complainant is directed to submit the mobile set in question to the O.P. within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The O.Ps. No.2 & 3 are further directed to comply with the order jointly and severally within period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

 

8.                    The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules. The file be           indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

          ANNOUNCED                                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

          Dated: 31.03.2017                                                           PRESIDENT

 

                                                                   (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                        MEMBER.