Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/256

Pardeep Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gurjeet Singh Adv.

13 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 256 of 17.04.2015

Date of Decision            :   13.07.2016 

 

Pardeep Kapoor son of Sh.T.R.Kapoor, resident of H.No.449-D, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.Reliance Retail Limited, Reliance DX Mini(Digital), SCF No.1&2, Shastri Nagar Market, Near Ishmeet Chowk, Ludhiana-141001, through its Managing Director/Director.

2.Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd., B-1, Sector 81, Phase 2, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

3.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Samsung Customer Satisfaction, 2^nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002.

4. Kiran Mobile Care, Samsung Mobile Service Center, Shop No.4-5, Ist Floor, Main Market, Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana-141001 through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized person.

…Opposite parties 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

MRS.          BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :          Sh.Chander Mohan, Advocate

For OP2 and OP3           :          Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate

For OP1 and OP4          :         Ex-parte.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant Sh.Pardeep Kapoor against Ops by claiming that he is resident of Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana and purchased a mobile handset of Samsung Galaxy S Duos-2, Model No.GT-S7582 make from Op1 for consideration of Rs.8504/- on 27.6.2014. That mobile handset was purchased on representation of OP1 that OP2 and OP3 will provide maintenance/replacement services of defective parts. OP4 is the authorized service centre of OP2 and OP3. This mobile handset started giving minor problem of hanging, charging and vibration etc., after one month of its purchase. After five months of purchase of the mobile handset, the major problem erupted, due to which, complainant visited OP4 on 8.1.2015 for getting the defects removed. OP4 after testing/checking the mobile handset, retained the same by finding defects. OP4 returned the mobile handset to the complainant in the evening of same day with the assurance that mobile handset will work properly because the defects had been removed. Again on 11.1.2015, the mobile handset stopped vibration. Complainant owing to busy schedule approached OP4 on 23.1.2015 for complaining about the non working of the vibration of the mobile handset. A person namely Deepak attended the complainant and after examining the mobile thoroughly, promised to remove the defects. Assurance was given to return the mobile handset to the complainant after one hour. Thereafter,     said Deepak called upon the complainant to collect the mobile handset on the next date namely 24.1.2015. Complainant called upon OP4 on 24.1.2015 for knowing about the fate of mobile handset. OP4 disclosed that defects have been removed and the complainant can collect the defect free mobile handset. However, on visit of OP4, said Mr.Deepak again disclosed the complainant as if the defects have not been rectified, owing to which, complainant should visit after 2-3 days back. Numerous requests were thereafter made by the complainant to OP4 for prevailing upon him to manage some other mobile handset because the complainant remains in need of mobile handset. Thereafter, OP4 agreed to provide normal/simple standby mobile handset by assuring the complainant to collect the defect free mobile handset on 27.1.2015. On 27.1.2015, complainant visited OP4 for knowing the position of his mobile handset, but again complainant was informed as if some big problem has occurred in the mobile handset. On 28.1.2015, the complainant again called upon  OP4, but mobile phone was not returned back to the complainant. On 29.1.2015, complainant again gave telephonic call to the office of OP4, where the same was attended by a lady who disclosed that complainant can collect the defect free mobile handset. However, that provided information turned wrong because the defects in the mobile handset of the complainant were not removed. Thereafter, despite numerous calls, the mobile handset was returned to the complainant by Op4 on 31.1.2015 with the assurance that the mobile handset is free from defects. However, the mobile handset started giving same problem again because of defects of charging and switching off automatically. Due to defects in the said mobile handset, complainant was constrained to rush to PCO and STD for making emergency calls. By pleading gross deficiency in service on the part of OPs, prayer made for replacement of the defective mobile handset with new one or refund  the price of the mobile handset of Rs.8504/-. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11000/- more claimed.

2.                In the joint written statement filed by OP2 and OP3, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint filed for abusing the process of law; complainant has no cause of action; there is no deficiency in service or breach of terms and conditions of contract. Besides, it is claimed that Ops or its service centre never denied due service after sale of the mobile handset to the complainant. Rather, it is claimed that Ops still ready to provide the services to the complainant, if required. Obligation of OPs is to set the mobile handset right by repairing or replacing the defective parts during warranty period only. Performance of mobile handset depends upon the physical handling of the product apart from installation and downloading of various mobile applications, games and other software. Alleged problem of charging reported on 8.1.2015 was due to mis-handling of the mobile handset. There is no inherent defect in the mobile handset. The charging jack was duly replaced and thereafter, mobile handset was returned back to the complainant in OK condition to his satisfaction. Complainant submitted his mobile handset with OP4 on 23.1.2015 with the problem of vibration, but on inspection of the mobile handset, the engineer of OP4 found no problem regarding vibration under standard conditions. Thereafter, mobile handset was delivered back to the complainant in OK condition to his satisfaction. In view of this, it is claimed that mobile handset is working perfectly right. No specific irrepairable manufacturing defect pointed out and nor complainant claimed the purchased mobile handset to be of inferior quality. Besides, no expert evidence produced to show the inherent defect. It is claimed that present complaint has been filed with malafide intention for extracting money from OPs by dragging them in unnecessary litigation. Admittedly, mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant with warranty of one year only. Other averments of the complaint denied.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP2 and OP3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Sunil Bhargava, General Manager of Samsung India Electronics Private Limited along with document Ex.R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                OP1 and OP4 are ex-parte in this case.

6.                After closure of evidence by appearing parties, opportunity was provided for submitting the written arguments, but those have not been submitted. Oral arguments of appearing counsel for the parties heard and records gone through minutely. 

7.                Undisputedly, the mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant from OP1 through invoice Ex.C1 for consideration of Rs.8504/-. Undisputedly, charging problem erupted in the mobile handset, due to which, the same was taken to the service centre i.e. OP4 on 8.1.2015 as disclosed by service request Ex.C2. That defect was removed is the claim of the complainant himself and thereafter, mobile handset was returned back to the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that on 11.1.2015, vibration of the mobile handset stopped, but he could not visit OP4 until 23.1.2015. Job sheet of date 23.1.2015 has been produced on record as Ex.C3 to show as if the vibration problem occurred, but mobile handset was scratchy. How the scratches emerged on the mobile handset qua that no explanation offered. Rather, unexhibited copy of job sheet dated 23.1.2015 shows as if standby mobile handset was issued to the complainant on 23.1.2015 itself. That fact has been admitted by the complainant in his complaint and as such, virtually services to the complainant were provided in such a way that his work doesn’t suffer during period from 23.1.2015 to 31.1.2015. The mobile after removing defects was returned        back to the complainant as per his own claim put forth in the complaint.

8.                Complainant served a legal notice Ex.C4 on 18.3.2015 through postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C8 and as such, it is contended that complainant able to prove as if he has been harassed. If really the mobile handset went out of order again after 31.1.2015, then why the complainant did not approach OP4 again for reporting the defects and getting them removed qua that due explanation not offered at all. Rather, vague and general allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the supporting affidavit Ex.CA that complainant contacted OPs numerous times. The date, month or year of such visits after 31.1.2015 not mentioned in the complaint or in the affidavit of complainant or in the legal notice Ex.C4 and as such, in view of vagueness of allegations, submissions advanced by counsel for the OPs has force that service centre of OPs never refused to provide due services to the complainant during warranty period.

9.                The mobile handset in question has not been got checked from the independent expert and as such, the complainant has failed to prove the manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. Allegations of manufacturing defect even not levelled in the complaint and nor the allegations levelled that mobile handset in question was having inherent defects or the same was of inferior quality than the one, for which, the price paid by the complainant to OP1. As OPs never refused to provide due services to the complainant on demand and as such, it is not a case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. So, certainly complaint is filed either for extracting money or for dragging the Ops in unnecessary litigation and as such, same merits dismissal.

10.              As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Babita)                                        (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:13.07.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.