DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 717 of 2012 | Date of Institution | : | 30.10.2012 | Date of Decision | : | 08.03.2013 |
Rajesh Kumar Verma s/o Shiv Mohan Verma, resident of # 472, Hallomajra, Chandigarh. …..Complainant V E R S U S 1. Samsung India Limited, SCO No.4-5, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager. 2. Durga Communications, SCO No.23, 1st floor, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager. 3. Naresh Mobile Care, Shop No.473/1, Near CITCO Shed, Hallomajra, Chandigarh through its proprietor. ……Opposite Parties QUORUM: P.L.AHUJA PRESIDENT RAJINDER SINGH GILL MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER For Complainant(s): Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate. For OP(s) : Sh.Arashdeep Arora, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for OPs No.1&2. OP No.3 exparte. PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT 1. Sh.Rajesh Kumar Verma, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Samsung India Limited & Ors. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he purchased one mobile set make Samsung Duos GTS 5222 from OP No.3 on 28.2.2012 for a consideration of Rs.6300/- vide bill, copy of which is Annexure C-1. The said mobile set carried a warranty of one year. It has been contended that the said mobile set gave a problem with regard to the connectivity and it was handed over to OP No.2 for repairs two times in the month of March, once in April, once in June and lastly in the last week of September. However, the complainant did not retain the photocopy of any of the job sheets but the record is there online in the computer of OP No.2. The said mobile set was manufactured by OP No.1 and OP No.2 is the authorized service centre of the manufacturer. It has been contended that the mobile set was returned back to the complainant in the first week of October and the problem still persists. The said mobile set has been twice sent to the head office as per OP No.2. The complainant has been working as a driver and due to this defective phone, he lost two jobs as his employer could not contact him due to defective mobile and thus shunted him out of service. The complainant has alleged that there is some inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile and the OPs are not in a position to rectify the same. The said mobile set has been repaired five times within a span of eight months. The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the OPs either to replace the mobile with brand new one of the same model and make or to refund Rs.6300/-, apart from making payment of compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. 2. OP No.3 did not appear despite service on 10.12.2012 and it was proceeded exparte. 3. OPs No.1 and 2 have pleaded in their written statement that no particular dates of the visits of the complainant have been mentioned in the complaint. In case, the complainant had brought the set for repair, he would have been issued the service request. It has been averred that no record regarding any service request have been found/traced by the OPs in the service record of the company. It has been averred that the mobile set has not been brought for repair at any stage to the OPs by the complainant. The complainant has not mentioned any particular date or time when the said set was brought for the purpose of repairs. It has been admitted that the mobile set in dispute is still covered under the warranty period of one year subject to the other warranty conditions i.e. there is no physical damage, no damage caused on account of external reasons etc. The complainant may be directed to hand over the said mobile set for the purpose of inspection and in case it is found that there is any defect, which is covered under the warranty conditions, the same shall be repaired under the warranty conditions itself. 4. In his rejoinder, the complainant has pleaded that the IMEI number of the mobile is clearly mentioned on the retail invoice and to trace out details only IMEI number is required. It has been stated that the OPs are engaging the complainant into all sorts of confusions and are trying to delay the matter, so that the warranty expires. It has been averred that the OPs are taking the benefit of the fact that the complainant has not retained the copies of job sheets issued by OP No.2. 5. The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 6. We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments of OPs No.1 and 2 and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant. 7. The copy of retail invoice – Annexure C-1 coupled with the affidavit of the complainant proves that the complainant purchased one Samsung Duos GTS 5222 mobile set for an amount of Rs.6300/- from OP No.3 on 28.2.2012. Admittedly the said mobile phone carried a warranty of one year. The present complaint was filed on 30.10.2012 i.e. after about 8 months of the purchase of the mobile set during the existence of warranty period. 8. The complainant has specifically mentioned that the said mobile phone has been giving the problem with regard to the connectivity and he visited OP No.2 and it was repaired five times within a span of 8 months. Though the complainant has not been able to give the exact dates but he has specifically mentioned that the mobile set was handed over to OP No.2 for repairs two times in the month of March, once in April, once in June and lastly in the last week of September. Unfortunately the complainant did not retain the photocopies of the job sheets. However, at the same time OP No.2 has deliberately not produced the history of the IMEI number of the mobile of the complainant to disprove his allegation that he handed over his mobile set to OP No.2 five times within a span of eight months during the warranty period. Since the record has been deliberately withheld by the OPs, therefore this fact warrants a presumption against them. Apart from it, it is also significant to note that OPs No.1 and 2 did not file a specific application, offering the complainant to repair his mobile set as per warranty conditions during the pendency of the complaint. Had the offer of OPs No.1 and 2 in the written statement about the repair of the mobile set been genuine, they would have made a request to the Forum for directing the complainant to produce the mobile set before this Forum for its inspection by their mechanic but this course was not adopted. Accordingly, we find that the complainant has been able to prove it that the mobile set purchased by him from OP No.3 manufactured by OP No.1 is suffering from a defect relating to connectivity and OP No.2 has not been able to remove that defect. Consequently, we find deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 2. Since the complaint was made during the subsistence of warranty period, therefore, if the warranty has expired during the pendency of the complaint, it cannot be stated that OPs No.1 and 2 are now not obliged to remove the defect. 9. For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed. OPs No.1 and 2 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with a new one of the same model and make with a fresh warranty. They are also directed to make payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for harassment and Rs.2500/- towards litigation expenses. 10. This order shall be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs No.1 and 2 shall refund the cost of the mobile set i.e. Rs.6300/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase of the mobile set till realization, apart from making payment of compensation and litigation costs, as mentioned above. 11. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. |