Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/10

Gurdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung Customer Care - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajiv Rana, Adv.

21 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,       ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  10 of 01.03.2017

                                 Date of decision                    :      21.08.2017

 

Gurdeep Singh, aged about 41 years, son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of Village Agampur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Samsung Customer Care Office, Jawahar Market, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar, through its Branch Manager.  

2. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, A -25,Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Estate, New Delhi-110044, through its Branch Manager

3. Prince Electronics, Near Gurudwara Sis Ganj Sahib, Sri Anandpur Sahib, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, through its Proprietor.                                                                                                                                                            ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Rajiv Rana, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

O.P. No.1 ex-parte

Sh. Chetan Kumar Gupta, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.2

              Sh. S.S.Rattan, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.3

ORDER

                                  MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh. Gurdeep Singh through his counsel has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To replace the mobile set in question with a new one  

ii)      To pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment

iii)     Any other relief which may Hon’ble Court deem fit may also granted in the interest of justice. 

2.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that vide bill dated 28.4.2016, he purchased a new Samsung Mobile phone, Model JIACE, having IMEI No. 356821/07/4505602 356822/07/45056010 from O.P. No.3 for a sum of Rs.6750/-,  having warranty of one year. After one month its purchase, it switched off automatically. He took it to O.P. No.1 for its inspection, which kept it for its repair and returned the same after three days without repairing it and told him that it got shot. He requested the O.Ps. either to rectify the defect or to replace the mobile set with the new one, but the O.Ps. did not pay any heed to his request. Hence, this complaint.

3.           On being put to notice, none appeared on behalf O.P. No.1, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.04.2017.

4.           On being put to the notice, the learned counsel for the O.P No.2 have filed written version taking preliminary objections that  the complaint is baseless, devoid of any merits whatsoever and without any cause of action whatsoever against the answering O.P.; that this Hon'ble Forum have not territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Hon'ble Forum with clean hands; that the present complaint is without any just or reasonable basis, an abuse of the process of law, misuse of machinery provided for redressal of genuine grievances. On merits, it is stated that answering O.P. provides one year warranty on the unit. The warranty of the unit is subject to some terms and conditions and the warranty becomes void in the following conditions:-

                   1. Liquid Logged/water logging

                   2. Physically Damage

                   3. Serial No. Missing

                   4. Tampering

                   5. Mishandling/Burnt etc. 

                   It is further stated that the answering O.P. has a system to lodge a complaint online but as per details, no complaint has been found           registered with the answering O.P. with regard to the unit of the       complainant. The answering O.P. is a renowned company and has    established a no. of service centers across the country to provide after        sale services to its customers and if there is any problem, the           customers may approach any of its service center, but the complainant    instead of doing so has filed the present complaint. The answering    O.P. was and is still ready to repair the unit as per warranty policy, so        there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P. Rest        of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer          has been made dismissal thereof.

5.                          The O.P. No.3 has also filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is bad for misjoinder and non joined of necessary parties; that the guarantee of the mobile is covered by the Samsung through its service centre; that the O.P. No.3 is not responsible for the guarantee of the mobile and the O.P. No.3 is specifically mentioned in his bill/receipt and the responsibility of the guarantee of the mobile is only manufactured company. On merits, it is stated that the complainant never requested the O.P. No.3 regarding the complaint of mobile. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.

6.                       On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A and copy of bill No. 927 dated 28.4.2016 Ex.C1 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Anindya Bose, Ex.OP2/A and copy of warranty card Ex.OP2/B and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 has tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of        Sh. Harpreet Singh, Proprietor of Prince Electronics Ex.OP3/A and attested copy of bill Ex.OP3/B and closed the evidence.     

  7.                    We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

8.          Admittedly, complainant purchased the mobile set in question from O.P. No.3 manufactured by O.P. No.2 for a sum of Rs.6750/- vide invoice dated 28.4.2016, Ex.C1. The plea of the complainant is that the mobile set in question got defective after one month of its purchase and he handed over the same to the O.P. No.1 i.e. service centre for its repair but it returned him back unrepaired.  However, to corroborate this fact, the complainant has not placed on record any document, thus, in the absence of any documentary proof, the aforesaid plea of the complainant is not sustainable and as such, O.P. No.1 cannot be said to be deficient in providing services, thus, the complaint filed qua O.P. No.1 is liable to be dismissed. Neither any specific allegations has been leveled by the complainant against O.P. No.3 nor it has been proved. Therefore, the complaint filed qua it is also liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 has submitted that O.P No.2 is still ready to repair the mobile set in question as per terms and conditions of the warranty, provided complainant handed over the same to its authorized service centre, situated at Ropar. It may be stated that the categorical stand of the O.P. No.2 is that the O.P. No.1 is not its authorized service centre, as such, it is incumbent upon it to disclose the name and address of its authorized service centre situated at Ropar, so that complainant may take the mobile set in question for its repair to the said authorized service centre.  

9.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against O.Ps. No.1 & 3 and dispose of the same against O.P. No.2, with a direction to it to write a letter to the complainant disclosing therein that the name and address of its authorized service centre situated at Ropar within 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and also instruct the said authorized service centre, to repair the mobile set in question, free of cost, as per terms and conditions of warranty within the period of 10 days from the date of receipt of mobile set in question from the complainant. If the mobile set in question either cannot repaired free of cost as per terms and conditions of the warranty or his beyond repair due to technical defect then the said authorized service centre shall give the reasons in writing. The complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile set in question to the authorized service centre of the O.P. No.2, situated at Ropar, within the period of 10 days, after receipt of the letter from the O.P. No.2, with regard to the name and address of the authorized service centre of the O.P. No.2. situated at Ropar.

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 .21.08.2017                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                           (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                              MEMBER