DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 218
Instituted on: 18.05.2017
Decided on: 17.08.2017
Sarla Devi wife of Kirpa Ram resident of Singh Sabha Gurudwara Street, Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. S.R.Sales Opposite Jyoti Sarup Gurudwara, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Proprietor.
2. Gaurav Communications, Gaushalla Road, Sangrur through its proprietor.
3. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Limited, A-25 Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Estate, New Delhi-110 044 through its Managing Director.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY No.1 : Exparte.
FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.2&3 : Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Sarla Devi, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased one Mobile set Make Samsung S7 Edge from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.55650/- vide retail invoice no. 0546 dated 06.07.2016 and OP had given warranty of one year. In the month of January 2017, LCD/ Screen display of the mobile set in question got damaged/broken due to fall from hand and complainant got replaced the same from OP no.2 by paying Rs.14500/- vide receipt no.1753 dated 19.01.2017. After change of LCD/Screen the complainant noticed that sometimes the display was showing problems i.e it used to get hanged and auto restart etc. and on asking of OPs the complainant used the said set for 2-3 months and ultimately the screen became inoperative. The complainant approached the Op no.2 who kept the mobile set and issued job sheet dated 1.5.2017 and told the complainant that Res.28,000/- will be payable for repair of the said mobile set. Thereafter job sheet dated 4.5.2017 was issued and a note of not satisfied on it was made by the representative of the complainant. Then the complainant requested the OPs to replace the defective mobile set with new one as it is within warranty period but OPs refused to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to either repair the set free of cost or replace the mobile set with new one or to refund its price i.e. Rs.55650/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no.1 did not appear and as such OP no.1 was proceeded exparte on 03.07.2017.
3. In reply filed by OPs No. 2&3, preliminary objections on the grounds of concealment of true facts, abuse of process of law, cause of action and misuse of process of law have been taken up. On merits, purchase of mobile set in question under one year warranty subject to warranty terms and conditions is admitted. It is correct that complainant got the mobile set repaired/ replaced from the OP no.2 by paying an amount of Rs.14000/- vide receipt no.1753 dated 19.01.2017 because physical damaged product is not covered under the warranty and repair is to be done on chargeable basis only. It is denied that OP no.2 told complainant to use the set for some time and if the alleged problem persisted then he will get the display replaced or in case of any other problem in the set then he will get the set replaced from the company rather after 19.01.2017 the complainant approached the Op no.2 on 1.5.2017 and he never visited the OP no.2 in between. It is correct that set was submitted with OP no.2 on 1.5.2017 and on inspection it was found liquid logged/damaged. Liquid logging being a warranty void condition the estimate of repair was given to the complainant but the complainant refused to get the mobile set repaired.
There is no defect in the display LCD, but the problem is due to liquid logging.
4. The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP No.3 has tendered documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/4 and closed evidence. No evidence has been produced by OP no.2.
5. From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs No.2 and 3, we find that complainant purchased one Mobile set Make Samsung S7 Edge from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.55650/- vide retail invoice no. 0546 dated 06.07.2016 under warranty of one year which is Ex.C-3 on record. The complainant has stated that in the month of January 2017, LCD/ Screen display of the mobile set in question got damaged/broken due to fall from hand and complainant got replaced the same from OP no.2 by paying Rs.14500/- vide receipt no.1753 dated 19.01.2017 which is Ex.C4 on record. After change of LCD/Screen the complainant noticed that sometimes the display was showing problems i.e it used to get hanged and auto restart etc. and on asking of OPs she complainant used the said set for 2-3 months and ultimately the screen became inoperative. The complainant approached the OP no.2 who kept the mobile set and issued job sheet dated 1.5.2017 which is Ex.C-5 on record and told the complainant that Res.28,000/- will be payable for repair of the said mobile set. Thereafter job sheet dated 4.5.2017 was issued which is Ex.C-6 on record and a note of not satisfied on it was made by the representative of the complainant. Then the complainant requested the OPs to replace the defective mobile set with new one as it is within the warranty period but OPs refused to do so.
6. The OP has also produced report of an expert namely Kulwant Singh, Service Engineer working with M/s Guarav Communication Gaushala Road, Sangrur, OP no.2 and his affidavit which are Ex.OP3/2 and Ex.OP3/3 respectively wherein he has stated that on inspection he found that there was liquid damage due to which internal parts of the handset were damaged and handset was not working. Liquid damage is warranty void condition due to breach of warranty the repair is to be done on chargeable basis and estimate of the repair was given to the complainant but the complainant flatly refused to repair the handset on chargeable basis. Moreover, as per warranty condition, if the liquid is lodgged in the mobile set, then the same will not be considered under warranty and in such case the customer will have to pay for the repair of the product. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that Kulwant Singh is working with M/s Gaurav Communication OP no.2 and being a paid employee he would support the contention of M/s Gaurav Communication. We find merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant because Mr. Kulwant Singh is not an independent person. In support of his contention learned counsel for the complainant has produced a ruling of the Hon'ble State Consumer Commission Punjab, titled as Shaminder Pal Singh Vs. Samsung India & another, First Appeal No.311 of 2012, decided on 17.01.2013. The OP no. 1 did not appear to contest the case of the complainant rather they chosen to remain exparte. As such evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted. Moreover, the OP no.2 has not produced any evidence.
7. For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same model. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.2000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
8. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. Announced
August 17, 2017
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill) Member Member President
