BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR

                                                C.C. No.365 of 2014                                                                        Date of Institution: 24.9.2014           

                                                Date of Decision: 27.1.2015

Chetan Sharma son of Rakesh Kumar Sharma, resident of House No.168, Street No.6, Bharat Nagar, Ferozepur City.    

....... Complainant

Versus       

1.   S.K. Electronics, Bazar No.7, Near Neem Wala Chowk, Ferozepur Cantt, through its authorized signatory.

2.   Samsung Service Centre, Mall Road, Above Fedral Bank, Ferozepur  City, through its authorized signatory.

3.   Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, B-1 Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pardesh, through its authorized signatory.

                                                                             ........ Opposite parties

                                                Complaint   under Section  12 of                                   the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                                                          *        *        *        *        *       

PRESENT :

For the complainant                :        Sh. Deepak Khullar, Advocate

For opposite party Nos.1 & 2          :         E x-p a r t e

For opposite party No.3                  :         Sh. Maninder Vohra, Advocate

QUORUM

S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President

S. Gyan Singh, Member 

                             ORDER

GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-

                   Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a handset having model Galaxy Star S-5282, which was

C.C. No.365 of 2014               \\2//

manufactured by opposite party No.3, from opposite party No.1 on 4.10.2013 for an amount of Rs.5000/- and opposite party No.1 issued bill No.4789 dated 4.10.2013. Further it has been pleaded that after some time, hand set in question was giving problem with regard to battery backup and signal problem. The complainant contacted opposite party No.2, who is an authorized service centre of opposite party No.3, for the repair of the same and opposite party No.2 repaired the same after few days. Thereafter, again the above said handset was giving the signal problem and touch problem. The complainant again contacted opposite party No.2 for the repair of the same and opposite party No.2 repaired the same after few days. Further it has been pleaded that the handset in question was again giving touch and receiver problem and the complainant contacted opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that the handset will be returned after few days after its repair. But opposite party No.2 was claiming repair charges from the complainant. The complainant requested opposite party No.2 that the handset in question is still within warranty period, but they did not listen the complainant and snatched the handset from the complainant and refused to return the same until and unless the complainant will not pay the repair charges. The handset in question is in the custody of opposite party No.2. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has

C.C. No.365 of 2014               \\3//

prayed that the opposite parties be directed to replace the handset in question with new one or to return the sale price of handset in question. Further a sum of Rs.8000/- has been claimed as compensation for harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 did not appear before this Forum despite service of notice. Therefore, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 4.10.2014.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party No.3 appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that the handset in question has been mishandled by the complainant. There is no deficiency service or breach of contract on the part of opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 or its service center has never denied after sales services and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant, if required. The alleged problems of touch and receiver has arisen due to physical mishandling of the handset. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 on 19.9.2014 with problem of touch and receiver. On inspection by opposite party No.2, it was found that the handset has been mishandled physically due to which the said problem has arisen. This fact was brought to the knowledge of the complainant and he was advised to handle the handset with care. Accordingly opposite party No.2 replaced the touch and receiver of the handset and called upon the complainant to take back his

C.C. No.365 of 2014               \\4//

handset as the problem has been duly rectified. The complainant with ulterior motive did not take back his handset and has now filed the present complaint against the opposite parties. The liability of opposite party No.3 under the terms and conditions of the warranty is limited to the extent to set right the product by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

4.                Learned counsel for complainant tendered into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-4 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 tendered into evidence Ex. OP-3/1 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the file.

6.                 The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties have sold defective mobile handset having manufacturing defect to the complainant and they have failed to put it in proper working condition despite repeated repairs and now opposite party No.2 has withheld the mobile handset and is demanding repair charges from the complainant. On the other hand, opposite party No.3 has pleaded that the complainant approached opposite party No.2 only on 19.9.2014 with the problem of Touch and Receiver, which had arisen due to physical mishandling of the

C.C. No.365 of 2014               \\5//

handset by the complainant, and the handset in question has been duly rectified and is lying with opposite party No.2 and the complainant can collect the same on any working day during working hours by producing the original job sheet. It has also been denied by opposite party No.3 that opposite party No.2 is demanding repair charges. A perusal of copy of Service Request Ex.C-3 also reveals that the complainant had approached opposite party No.2 with touch and receiver problem in the handset in question, which stated to have been duly rectified. No evidence has been produced by the complainant that prior to 19.9.2014, he had ever approached opposite party No.2 with any problem in the mobile handset in question and opposite party No.2 carried out any repair for the same. No expert opinion/evidence has been placed on the file by the complainant to prove that the mobile handset in question has any manufacturing defect, which cannot be rectified and warrants replacement of the mobile handset in question. As per condition No.8 of the Customer Details Cum Warranty Card, copy of which has been placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.C-4, the obligation of the company under this warranty is limited to repair or providing replacement of part(s) only. The mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant on 4.10.2013 with one year warranty from the date of its purchase. As per Service Request Ex.C-3, the complainant approached opposite party No.2 on 19.9.2014 for repair of the

C.C. No.365 of 2014               \\6//

handset in question. Since the complainant had approached opposite party No.2 for repair of the mobile handset in question within warranty period, but has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question, he is not entitled to replacement of the mobile handset in question or refund of its price. However, the opposite parties are liable to repair the mobile handset in question and to put it in proper working condition to the entire satisfaction of the complainant free of cost.

7.                In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile handset in question and to put it in proper working condition to the entire satisfaction of the complainant free of cost. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with jointly and severally by the opposite parties within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.  

Announced                                                                   

 27.1.2015

                                                         (Gurpartap Singh Brar)

                                                            President

                                                                             (Gyan Singh)                                                                                    Member