Haryana

Ambala

CC/51/2018

Anchal Madan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung Electronics Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

10 Dec 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        : 51 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution         : 06.02.2018

                                                          Date of decision    :  10.12.2018

 

Anchal Madan D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar r/o # 269 Sector-8 Urban Estate, Ambala City. 

    ……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

1.  Samsung Electronics Pvt Ltd 2^nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course road-122002

2.  Samsung Care Center office at Ist Floor Prem Nagar near Gurdwara Prem Nagar Ambala City.

3.  Durga Agencies, Tandura Bazaar Ambala City.

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh.D.N.Arora, President.                 

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

                            

Present:        Sh. Harsh Vohra,   counsel for complainant.

 Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for OP Nos.1 & 2.

 OP No.3 already ex parte.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that complainant had purchased a mobile phone bearing no.8816911271 bearing EMI No.354175081559645 model no.SM=J210F, from the OP No.3 worth Rs. 9750/- vide cash memo no.-7942 dated 07.12.2017 and also given one year warranty of the above said mobile phone. The complainant many time reached before the OP No.3 and requested to change the defective mobile but the OP No.3 advised to contact the OP No.2. On the advice of the OP No.3 the complainant visited OP No.2 and narrated that the mobile is not working properly and the mobile phone was deposited with OP No.2.  Thereafter mobile phone went out of order number of times and got deposited to the Op No.2. The mobile in question remained out of order number of times during warranty period. The OPs neither redress the grievance of the complainant nor changed the mobile in question which was having manufacturing/inherent defect. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4.

2.               Upon notice, OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable, cause of action, no jurisdiction, not come with clean hand and suppressed the material facts. On merits, OP Nos. 1 & 2 stated that the complainant has approached in regards to the Ops on 05.02.2018 vide call no. 4254473063 for  first and the last time just before the expiry  of warranty  period  of the unit as the alleged unit was purchased on 07.02.2017 and reported display  issue in his unit. It is evident of the facts that the alleged unit was having no problem and was working perfectly till date 05.02.2018 and  on that occasion, engineer  of the company thoroughly checked  the unit in the presence of complainant  and found that the unit was damage due to mishandling/negligence on part of complainant. The engineer of service center told to complainant that the unit cannot be considered  under warranty  as company provides a warranty  of one year  from the date of purchase of unit got damaged due to mishandling/negligence on part of complainant, the warranty  becomes void, and in the case of complainant unit got damaged due negligence/mishandling  on part of complainant and accordingly gave the  estimate of repair. But the complainant did not approve the estimate and started demanding free of cost repair/replacement of his unit. They further stated that they are ready to provide services as per warranty policy i.e. paid repair, but the complainant is not ready for the same, so there is no deficiency on the part of OP Nos. 1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-4 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP Nos.1 & 2 tendered affidavits as Annexure R-A & R-B alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-3 and close their evidence.

4.                 We have heard both the counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The complainant has come with the plea that the mobile in question got damaged during warranty period time and again and she had visited the service centre and OP No.3 number of times for getting her grievance redress but till today nothing fruitful has been done despite the fact that there was manufacturing/inherent defect in the mobile in question.

                   On the other hand the OPs have argued that alleged unit was having no problem and was working perfectly till date 05.02.2018 and the complainant first and last time approached them qua non working of mobile  but on checking the same was found damage due to mishandling/negligence on part of complainant, therefore, the warrant of the unit was void and the OPs are ready to provide the services as per warranty policy i.e. paid repair, but the complainant is not ready for the same, so there is no deficiency on the part of OPs.

                   During the proceedings of this case counsel for the complainant had moved an application for appointment of local commissioner which was allowed by this Forum on 14.05.2018. The local commissioner in his report dated 11.06.2018 Annexure C4 has opined that After inspection it was found that the said mobile is getting on but having multiple problems. It is handing during operation. Battery backup is also less. Charging socket is also loose. Sometimes it starts charging sometime it’s not. Sometimes the said mobile is also getting switched off without any reason. There is some problem in the printed circuit board of the mobile. It seems that there is some technical or manufacturing defects in the PCB of the said mobile. The local commissioner, who is an independent  authority, in his report has clearly mentioned that there was manufacturing defect/technical defect in the unit in question. Op Party has cross examinationed the  LC but nothing came in to their favor & LC remain strict to his report which depict  that there is a technical & manufacture defect mobile in question Perusal of Annexure C2 reveals that the handset was purchased by the complainant on 07.02.2017 and except the job sheet dated 05.02.2018 Annexure C1 there is nothing on the file to show that the complainant has ever visited the service centre or lodged any complaint regarding non working of mobile. The warranty of the mobile in question was for one year and the same went out of order before the just expiry period. The OPs have come with the plea that the damage occurred to the mobile due to mishandling but this fact is not corroborated by any authentic evidence, therefore, this version is not believable. The above said appliance is necessary for daily use and it is a part and parcel of life in this modern era. Annexure R-2, job card issued by the Ops reveal that the product in question has went out of order. Therefore, the complainant has to visit service centre for rectifying the defect.  In view of above discussion, it is clear that the mobile is not working properly and defect could not be rectified by the Ops. In this way, Ops No. 1 & 2 are negligent to perform their duty. However OP No.3 is a seller has no role in this case, so the complaint against OP No.3 is hereby dismissed and the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs  against Ops No. 1 & 2  are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To repair/rectify the above said defect of mobile in the question and make the same in working condition free of costs & in case if defect mobile in question not rectified in that eventuality Op are bound to replace the handset with new one having same value mention in bill   C-2 i.e Rs 9750/-

(ii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

 

Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 10.12.2018

 

                    

 

(DR.SUSHMA GARG)                                  (D.N. ARORA)

          Member                                               President