DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/137

Date of Institution : 21.02.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 06.07.2022

Dheeraj Singh Sood son of Sh. Anil Kant Sood, R/o 134, Street No. 4, Model Town,  Amritsar.  …Complainant

Versus

1. Samsung Indian Electronic Private Limited, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-44 Through its Authorized Signatory.

2. M/s A.A. Electronics, SCO-100-101, Hide Market, Amritsar through its Partner/Prop.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint U/S 11, 12 and 13 of The Consumer Protection Act

Present: Sh. Sanjay Dhingra Adv counsel for complainant.

Ms. Preeti Mahajan Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 exparte. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986  against Samsung Indian Electronic Private Limited, New Delhi and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant purchased a Samsung mobile which has been manufactured by opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 is the service station of opposite party No. 1. The said set was having a problem of hanging up time and again and it was handed over to opposite party No. 2 for its repair the handset was out of warranty period. However, opposite party No. 2 being authorized service centre bound to repair the same so the set was handed over to opposite party No. 2 for necessary repair against the payment of service charges of Rs. 170/- but on 23.12.2016 when the complainant went to receive the said handset from the opposite party No. 2 he found that the same problem persisted and set was not working properly and it was handed over to opposite party No. 2 for doing the needful vide service request No. 4227805405 dated 23.12.2016. The opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that he will be informed within 15 days after getting set repaired but the complainant never received any call and when he approached the opposite party No. 2 they put the matter of on one pretext or other. Thereafter the complainant was constrained to serve a legal notice dated 8.2.2017 to the opposite party No. 2 but to no effect. After that the complainant again visited the opposite party No. 2 who disclosed that due to some manufacturing defect the set was sent to opposite party No. 1 who has not sent back the same to the opposite party No. 2 after getting it repaired which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to replace the handset or to pay the price of the handset i.e. Rs. 16,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization. 

2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation.  

3) To pay adequate cost of litigation.  

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint bad for mis joinder of parties. No cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint against the answering opposite party. The handset in question was out of the warranty when the same was submitted for repair with opposite party No. 2 on 23.12.2016. The warranty period has been expired on 28.2.2016. On internal inspection the handset was found liquid logged due to which PBA board of the handset was damaged and required replacement which fact is mentioned in the job sheet issued by opposite party No. 2. The complainant refused to pay for repair charges. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. The opposite party No. 2 charged Rs. 170/- from the complainant were service charges on account of inspection of handset internally to find out the exact fault/defect in the handset. The mobile handset has been mishandled by the complainant leading to liquid damage. The complainant intentionally left the handset with the opposite party No. 2. The complainant purchased the handset on 1.3.2015 and submitted with the opposite party No. 2 for the first time on 23.12.2016 after 20 months of purchase and use, after the expiry of warranty period of one year. The complainant also not filed report of any expert in support of alleged submissions as required under law and in the absence of any expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed. 

4. On merits, it is denied that the handset was having the problem of hanging up time and again. It is admitted that the handset was submitted with the opposite party No. 2 on 23.12.2016 for repair on payment of Rs. 170/- as service charges to check the handset internally to detect the exact fault. Rest of the contents of the complaint are denied by the opposite party No. 1. However, it is submitted that when the opposite party No. 2 asked the complainant to take back the handset if he does not want to get it repaired on chargeable basis then complainant intentionally did not take back his handset. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Lastly, opposite party No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint against the opposite party No. 1 with costs. 

5. The opposite party No. 2 did not appear before this Commission despite service, so the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte.  

6. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C-1, copy of job card Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence. 

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1  tendered in evidence affidavit of Anup Kumar Mathur Director Ex.OP-1/1, affidavit of Vimal Sareen Ex.OP-1/2, copy of service request  Ex.OP-1/3 and closed the evidence. 

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file carefully. Written arguments also filed by the opposite party No. 1. 

9. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant purchased the mobile on 1.3.2017 manufactured by opposite party No. 1. It is also admitted by the opposite party No. 1 that the complainant submitted the mobile set with the opposite party No. 2 on 23.12.2016. It is admitted by the complainant himself in his complaint that his mobile is out of warranty when he submitted the same with the opposite party No. 2. It is also admitted by the opposite party No. 1 that the mobile set is with the opposite party No. 2 from the date of its deposit with the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 also received Rs. 170/- from the complainant for inspection of the mobile set. 

10. It is admitted by the opposite party No. 1 and also proved from the copy of job sheet Ex.C-2/Ex.OP-1/3 that the complainant submitted his handset with the opposite party No. 2 on 23.12.2016. Further, the complainant deposed in his affidavit and also admitted by the opposite party No. 1 that from 23.12.2016 the mobile handset is still lying with OP-2. The opposite party No. 2 intentionally not appeared before this Commission to clear that why till date they have not returned the mobile set of the complainant. Even if the warranty of mobile handset is expired, the opposite party No. 2 is duty bound to repair the mobile set of the complainant on chargeable basis and in case the complainant is not interested to get it repair on chargeable basis then the opposite party No. 2 must returned his mobile set. But the opposite party No. 2 retained the mobile set of the complainant for more than five years and not appeared before this Commission to prove that they have made efforts to return the mobile set of the complainant, so there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 2.

11. In view of the above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 is directed to repair the mobile set of the complainant on chargeable basis. The complainant is directed to approach the opposite party No. 2 within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order to get repair his mobile set. The opposite party No. 2 is also directed to pay Rs. 3,300/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        6th Day of July 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member