Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/41/2018

Shingara Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Puri Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. K.S.Mandhour

25 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.41 of 2018

                                                        Date of institution:  13.09.2018                         

                                                         Date of decision   :  25.02.2020

Shingara Singh son of Sh. Sadhu Singh resident of village Alipur Sodhian P.O. Malko Majra Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Puri Telecom Near Over Bridge, Bassi Road, Sirhind Mandi Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Samsung Care Service Center, Goel Market, New Krishna Mandir, Mandi Gobindgarh Tehsil Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., Head Office, Tower-C, Vipal Tech. Square Golf Course Road, Sector 93, Gurgaon (Haryana).

 

…..Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member    

                            

Present:     Sh. K.S. Mandhour, counsel for the complainant.

                 Sh. N.K. Puri, counsel for opposite party No.1.

                 Opposite party No.2 exparte.

                 Sh. G.S.Nagra, counsel for opposite party No.3.

ORDER

By Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

                  The complainant filed the present complaint pleading that he had purchased Mobile Samsung Model-110 IMEI No.359960/08516751/0-359961/08/516751/8 on 02.01.2018 from Opposite Party No.1 for an amount of Rs.1400/-. Opposite Party No.1 issued invoice No.1977 dated 02.01.2018. Thereafter, on 15.04.2018, the mobile hand set in question stopped working and on 16.04.2018 the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and requested to repair/change the defective hand set. But Opposite Party No.1 advised the complainant to approach Customer Care Center i.e. Opposite Party No.2. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2, who told him that Opposite Party No.1 would repair the mobile hand set. Thereafter the complainant again approached opposite party No.1 and requested to either repair the mobile hand set in question or to change the same with the new one. Opposite party No.1 retained the mobile hand set and advised the complainant to come after one week. After one week the complainant again approached OP No.1, who told the complainant that the mobile is yet to be repaired and again asked the complainant to come after one week. Again after one week the complainant approached OP No.1 but OP No.1 again postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Lastly the complainant approached OP No.1 on 21.05.2018 and requested to return the same after its repair but OP No.1 told the complainant that the mobile hand set in question cannot be repaired. Opposite Party No.1 neither returned the mobile hand set after its repair nor replaced the same with the new one, rather he used filthy language towards the complainant and retained the mobile hand set. The complainant also served a legal notice through his counsel upon the opposite parties but all in vain. The act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile hand set retained by Opposite Party No.1 with new one or to refund the like amount and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused by opposite party No.1 along with Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.               Notice of the complaint was issued to the Opposite Parties but opposite party No.2 chose not to appear to contest this complaint despite service. Hence, Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.

3.               The complaint is contested by OPs No.1 & 3. In his written version Opposite Party No.1 stated that Customer Care Centre i.e. OP No.2 after examining the mobile hand set reported that the mobile has been tampered and liquid damage so the same cannot be repaired.  It has also been clearly mentioned on the Bill that there is no warranty, if the mobile is broken or the same has stopped working due to entering of water in the mobile. Hence, the mobile hand set cannot be repaired under the warranty. The mobile hand set become dead due to the fault of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. After denying the other averments made the complaint, Opposite Party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

4.               In its written version, Opposite Party No.3 stated that there is breach of warranty terms and conditions. The handset has been found to be liquid logged when it was submitted with Opposite Party No.2 on 02.07.2018. The fact regarding liquid logging is a warranty void condition was disclosed to the complainant and estimate of repair was given. But the complainant refused to get his handset repaired on chargeable basis. Therefore, the handset was returned to the complainant without repair. The complainant himself has been negligent in using the mobile handset in question. It is further stated by Opposite party No.3 that the performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product. The mobile hand set has been badly mishandled by the complainant leading to liquid logging of the same.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.3. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, Opposite Party No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.               In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1/A along with documents Ex. C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal Opposite Party No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sachin Puri Ex. OP1/1, true copies of documents i.e. report of customer care center Ex. OP1/2, acknowledgement of service request Ex. OP1/3 and closed the evidence. Opposite Party No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Anup Kumar Mathur as Ex.OP3/1, attested copy of warranty book Ex. OP3/2, affidavit of Mohit Mehra son of Anil Mehra Service Engineer Ex. OP3/3, true copies of Job Sheets Ex. OP3/4 and Ex. OP3/5, photograph of damaged part of mobile hand set Ex. OP3/6 and closed the evidence.

6.               We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

7.               The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued on the lines of pleadings of complaint and requested to allow the complaint in favour of complainant, whereas Ld. counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 denied any kind of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and requested to dismiss the complaint with costs.

8.               The complainant placed on record GST Invoice i.e. Ex. C-1, which proves that the complainant purchased the mobile hand set in question from opposite party No.1 on 02.01.2018 for an amount of Rs.1400/-. To prove his complaint, complainant has filed on record his duly attested affidavit as Ex. CW1/A wherein facts of complaint were stated on oath by him. On the other hand, to prove their version, the opposite parties, filed on record duly attested affidavit of   Sh.   Sachin Puri

as Ex. OP1/1, affidavit of Anup Kumar Mathur Ex. OP3/1 and affidavit of Mohit Mehra, Service Engineer, as Ex. OP3/3. In his affidavit(Ex.OP3/3) Sh. Mohit Mehra, Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.2 has stated as under:-

" That he is working with authorized service center, OP No.2 and is duly qualified for the job of repair of mobile phones manufactured by Samsung India Electronics Private Limited. The complainant has only submitted his handset with OP No.2 on 02.07.2018 with reported problem of 'Handset Dead'. The handset was entrusted to him for repair. He checked the handset internally and found the PBA board of the handset damaged due to " Liquid Logging" i.e. liquid has made ingress in the handset due to which the motherboard of the handset got damaged. The fact regarding' Liquid Logging' which is a warranty void condition was disclosed to complainant but complainant refused to get his handset repaired on chargeable basis. Therefore the handset was returned to complainant without repair".

In support of his affidavit the service engineer placed on record acknowledgement of service requests which are Ex. OP3/4 & OP3/5. The complainant has failed to rebut the version of the opposite parties. Warranty Card is Ex. OP3/2, vide which it has been specifically mentioned 'Out of Warranty Condition & Warranty Void Conditions' which are reproduced as under:-

1. Defect due to misuse/third party repair attempts are not covered in warranty.
2. Warranty does not cover defect due to external factors/mediums/data types.
3. Warranty shall apply only if the product it used as per its usage specifications( example:Personal, Commercial etc.)
4. Warranty shall be void if product has failed under certain conditions/types(example:Water logging, misuse etc.)

9.               In view of above said observations it is proved that the handset in question is not covered under warranty due to liquid logging/damage, which is warranty void condition. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be issued to the parties free of cost and thereafter file be consigned to the record room.

10.               The complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period of time as provided under 3^rd Proviso of Section 13 (3A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because the post of President of this Forum remained vacant since 16.09.2018 and the Post of Lady Member remained vacant since 02.03.2017 and the undersigned President is doing the additional duty since 03.06.2019 for performing quasi judicial duties only for two days per week.

Pronounced                                                                            

Dated: 25.02.2020

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)           

  President

 

                                                                               (Yuvinder Singh Matta)

                                                                                   Member