Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/67/2016

Vishal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab Mobile HUt - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Sandeep Kumar Verma

31 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                 Consumer Complaint No.67 of 2016

                                                                 Date of institution:  15/07/2016                                                    

                                                                Date of decision   :  31.03.2017

Vishal aged about 32 years son of Ramesh Kumar, resident of # 279, Sector- 21-B, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab Mobile Hut, Near Ladies Park, Goal Market, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its authorized signatory/proprietor.
2. Samsung Service Center, Ward No.17, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its authorized signatory/proprietor.
3. Samsung:Head Office- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.20-24^th Floor, Two Horrizon Center, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF Phase-IV Gurgaon, Haryana through its M.D./Chairman.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum

            Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                      

               Sh. Inder Jit, Member

   

Present :     Sh.Sandeep Kumar Verma, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.   

         Sh. G.S.Nagra, Adv. Cl. for OP No.2 & 3.                           

           Opposite Party No.1 exparte.

 

ORDER

Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                   Complainant, Vishal aged about 32 years son of Ramesh Kumar, resident of # 279, Sector- 21-B, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                The complainant purchased a Samsung mobile phone Model A500 IMEI No.359932064525794 from OP No.1, on 25.02.2016 for an amount of Rs.17,500/-. At the time of purchase, OP No.1 assured the complainant that the mobile hand set is of an excellent quality and best service will be provided by the OPs. OPs also gave warranty of one year for the said mobile hand set from the date of its purchase. After functioning well for some time the mobile hand set, in the second week of March 2016, developed problems like heating, mobile network and phone calls automatically on when any phone call comes. The complainant approached OP No.1 for the said problem, who advised the complainant to change the sim card. Thereafter the complainant tried to change the sim card but the sim tray of the phone was not coming out. Therefore, the problem of mobile hand set was not sorted out. Then the complainant approached OP No.2 for its repair. OP No.2 retained the mobile hand set with it and issued job sheet dated 01.06.2016. But OP No.2 did not repair the mobile hand set and asked the complainant that the mobile hand set is out of warranty as sim tray has been broken. OP No.2 refused to repair the mobile hand set free of cost and demanded Rs.7,500/- for its repair despite the fact that the mobile hand set was within warranty. On 05.07.2016 the complainant again approached OP No.2 and requested to replace the mobile hand set but it flatly refused to replace the same, rather it also refused to repair it. The complainant so many times visited OP No.1 & 2 and requested to redress his grievance but all efforts went in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.17,500/- i.e. price of mobile hand set and Rs.20,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.

3.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs. But OP No.1 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte.

4.                The complaint is contested by OPs No.2 & 3, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint, OPs No. 2 and 3 raised certain preliminary objection, inter alia, that the complainant is not entitled for any relief from this Forum as he has concealed the true and material facts; the present complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act as the present complaint is gross abuse of the process of law and is based on false, frivolous and baseless allegations. As regards the facts of the complaint, OPs No. 2 and 3 stated that the performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product.  But the said mobile hand set had been physically mishandled as the 'Sim Tray' of the same was found 'broken' when the mobile hand set was submitted to OP No.2 on 01.06.2016.  Damage caused due to mishandling or negligence is not covered under warranty and hence repair was to be done on chargeable basis. The OPs are not responsible for any defect developed after the lapse of warranty or defect due to physical damage.  The liability of the OPs is subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty as mentioned in the warranty card supplied with the product at the time of its sale. It is further stated by the OPs that the complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect/inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence. In the absence of any expert evidence, the claim cannot be allowed. There is no deficiency of service or breach of contract on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of bill Ex. C-2, copy of job sheet Ex. C-3 & C-4, copy of phone details Ex. C-5, copy of call details to customer care Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence.  In rebuttal OPs No. 2 & 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sunil Bhargav Ex. OP2/1, true copy of warranty card Ex. OP2/2 and closed the evidence.

6.                 Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that complainant approached OP No.1 for cure of the problem in the mobile handset, who advised the complainant to change the sim card. He stated that the complainant attempted to change the sim card but the sim tray of the phone was not coming out. Learned counsel pleaded that it is evident from the retail invoice Ex.C-2 and other relevant documents placed on record that the said mobile set was within the warranty period, when complainant visited the service center. He argued that no physical damage was caused by the complainant but OP No. 2 & 3 are making lame excuses, in order to escape from their responsibility. Learned counsel further argued that the present case deserves to be accepted as the OP no. 2 & 3 has committed deficiency in service by not redressing the grievance of the complainant.

7.                On the other hand, Learned counsel for OP No. 2 & 3 stated that the mobile hand set had been physically mishandled as the Sim Tray of the same was found broken when the said mobile hand set was submitted to OP No.2 on 01.06.2016 and the same is established from job sheet i.e Ex.C-3. He further stated that due to physical damage, repair of handset was not covered under warranty and repair was to be done on chargeable basis. Learned counsel pleaded that in view of the terms and condition of the warranty clause 7 under the head "Warranty Conditions" and clause 5 under the head “The warranty is not applicable in any of the following cases” (Ex. OP2/2) no deficiency in service had been committed by OP no.2 & 3. He argued it is a case of physical damage thus the warranty is void and the said mobile cannot be repaired free of cost or replaced.

8.                After hearing the Learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence, written arguments along with oral submission, we find force in the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the OP no.2 & 3.It is established from the job sheet i.e Ex.C3 that sim try was damaged and this fact has been admitted by the complainant in his pleadings. It is further established from the terms and condition of the warranty clause 7 under the head Warranty Conditions- “In case of any damage to the product/misuse detected by the Authorized Service Center personnel, the warranty conditions are not applicable and repairs will be done subject to availability of parts and on the chargeable basis only” and  clause 5 under the head The warranty is not applicable in any of the following cases- “Defects caused by improper use, as determined by the authorized service center/company personnel”(Ex.OP2/2) that due to physical damage the warranty became void and repair was possible only on chargeable basis.

9.                Accordingly, in light of aforesaid discussion, we find that no deficiency in service is proved against the OPs. Hence we direct the complainant that if he wishes to get his mobile repaired, he may do so subject to payment of cost of repair. The present complainant is hereby disposed of. Parties to bear their own cost.           

10.               The arguments on the complaint were heard on 17.03.2017 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:31.03.2017                                                        (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                                                              President

 

(Inder Jit)                

             Member