BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 74 of 18.10.2016
Date of decision : 02.05.2017
Nirmal Singh, aged about 41 years, son of Late Piara Singh, resident of Village Majri Thekedran, Tehsil and District Rupnagar
....Complainant
Versus
1. Samsung Customer Care Office, SCF No.28, Ground Floor, Giani Zail Singh Nagar Market, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar (V.H. Enterprises)
2. Preet Communication, Pull Bazar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd. A 25, Ground Floor, Front Tower Mohan Cooperative Estate, New Delhi
...Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Saravpreet Singh Baweja Advocate, counsel for complainant
Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte
Sh.Chetan Kumar Gupta Advocate, counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 3
ORDER
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Nirmal Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
1) To replace the screen of the mobile set or to give the new hand set
2) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him,
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a new Samsung mobile J2, code No.SM-J210F from the O.P. No.2 for a sum of Rs.9750/- vide bill dated 23.8.2016, having warranty of one year. It started giving problem after some time of its purchase. As per advice of O.P. No.2, on 12.9.2016, he approached the service centre, which retained his mobile set and told him that it will take some time to repair it and it will inform him after the rectification of the mobile set. On 15.09.2016, the service centre handed over him the mobile set, after replacing the damaged screen, for which he paid a sum of Rs.4851/-. The screen replaced by the O.P. No.1 was not genuine as it turned black after some time of its replacement. He immediately took the mobile set to the service centre, but it refused to replace the defective screen, free of cost, inspite of the fact it was under warranty. Due to non replacement of the screen by the O.P. No.1, on 23.8.2016, he had to purchased a new hand set, for which he spent a sum of Rs.9750/-. Hence, this complaint.
3. On being put to the notice, the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 & 3 have filed written version taking preliminary objection: that the complaint is baseless; that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the present complaint does not fall within the definition of a consumer. On merits, it is stated that the mobile set brought by the complainant, on 15.9.2016, was thoroughly checked in the presence of of the complainant by the engineer of service centre. The broken screen of the mobile set was replaced on payment because the service centre was not liable to repair the physically damaged mobile set free of cost as per terms and conditions of the warranty. It is the oral assertion of the complainant that the mobile set is not working properly and same is required to be checked by some expert. By filing this complaint, the complainant wants to grab money from the answering O.Ps. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with cost.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the O.P. No.2, but inspite of service, when none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.12.2016
5. On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 along with copy of bill Ex.C1 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.1 & 3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager of Customer Satisfaction Department with Samsung India Electronics Limited, Ex.OP3/A, Copy of conditions Ex.OP3/1 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file carefully.
7. Admittedly, complainant purchased the mobile set in question from O.P. No.2 vide invoice dated 23.6.2016, Ex.C1. It is also an admitted fact that the O.P. No.1, replaced the broken screen of the mobile set in question by charging Rs.4851/-, for which it issued tax/vat/invoice dated 15.09.2016, Ex.C2. The grievance of the complainant is that even the replaced screen also turned black, immediately after its replacement and it stopped working. On 15.10.2016, he again took the said mobile set to the O.P. No.1 for replacement of the screen, but it refused to replace the same, inspite of the fact that the screen got defective within warranty period. The stand of the O.Ps. No.1 & 3 is that company never gives warranty on the replaced part(s), therefore, it refused to replace the screen free of cost.
8. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant had brought the mobile set to the Court. On pressing the On-button, the screen of the mobile remained black. Turning black of the screen within few days of its replacement, leads us to believe that, either spurious screen has been affixed or there is some discrepancy in affixing the same. As such, the O.P. No.1 by refusing to replace the screen, free of cost, has committed deficiency in service. Since, the O.P. No.1 is the authorized service centre of Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd. i.e. O.P. No.3, therefore, it is vicariously liable for the act and conduct of O.P. No.1. As such, O.P. Nos.1 & 3 are not only liable to replace the screen of the mobile set in question, free of cost but also liable to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant along with litigation expenses. Since no specific allegations have been leveled by the complainant against O.P. No.2 nor it has been proved, therefore, the complaint filed against qua it is liable to be dismissed.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against O.P. No.2 and allow the same against O.Ps. No.1 & 3. They are directed in the following manner:-
1. To replace the screen of the mobile set in question, free of costs.
2. To pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation including litigation cost.
The O.Ps. No.1 & 3 are further directed to comply with the order jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (NEENA SANDHU)
Dated .02.05.2017 PRESIDENT
(SHAVINDER KAUR)
MEMBER.
