BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 724 of 2017
Date of Institution: 9.10.2017
Date of Decision: 4.4.2018
Rawinder Sharma aged 35 years S/o Balwinder Kumar Sharma R/o #919, Street No.4, Harkrishan Nagar Chheharta, Amritsar, Punjab 9914524530
Complainant
Versus
- Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi through its Propreitor/MD
- Mamme di Hatti, St. No.26, Mai Market, Ram Nagar, Ludhiana (through proprietor/MD)
- A.A. Electronic, SCO 100-101, Hide Market, National Shopping Complex, Amritsar (through Proprietor/MD)
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: For the Complainant: In person..
For Opposite Party No.1: Ms.Preeti Mahajan, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties No.2 and 3: Exparte.
Coram
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member
Order dictated by:
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member
1. Rawinder Sharma, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, on the allegations that he purchased one Samsung Galaxy J5 Mobile handset vide bill No. 5113 dated 21.4.2016 having EMI No. 356823074767356 and 356824074767354 for Rs.11500/- from Opposite Party No.2 being the dealer of Opposite Party No.1 company and Opposite Party No.3 is Authorised Service Centre and at the time of sale, Opposite Party No.2 gave one year warranty of the product from the date of purchase, in case of any kind of defect or damage to the Mobile Set in question, complainant can get it repair under warranty within one year from the date of purchase from any authorized service centre and only on their assurances, the complainant purchased the Mobile Set in question by spending huge amount. The said mobile handset become non functional as its touch screen stopped working on 17.4.2017. The complainant made complaint of the said defect to opposite party No.3 and they kept the handset with them but after opening the whole set and checking the same, they made telephone call to the complainant and refused to repair the same in warranty and gave estimate of Rs. 3200/- approximately for its repair. As the complainant has no other chose and he paid the said amount of Rs. 3110/- after billing and got astonished that opposite party No.3 not only charged for spare part but also charged for labour which is highly injustice to the complainant. On asking warranty of this replaced spare part , they said if complainant face any problem in the replaced part, the complainant can contact to service centre within 6 months from the date of repair or replacement. But after few days touch screen of the same mobile set stopped working and on approaching to service centre, they refused to repair it again under spare part warranty. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
a) Opposite Parties may be directed to repair the mobile hand Set of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant or in the alternative to refund Rs. 11500/- alongwith interest ;
b) Opposite parties be also directed to refund the amount of Rs. 3110/- paid under warranty period by the complainant ;
b) Opposite Parties may also be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental sufferings, harassment and humiliation suffered by the complainant.
c) Opposite Parties may also be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written reply contesting the claim of the complainant taking preliminary objections inter alia therein that till date the handset has been submitted with authorized service centre only once on 17.4.2017 since its purchase, with reported problem of ‘Dead’. The service centre opposite party No.3 inspected the handset and found it “Liquid Tampered, physical damage” which is a warranty void condition and repair was to be done on chargeable basis. The estimate of repair was approved by the complainant and opposite party No.3 duly rectified the problem by replacing the required parts and handset was delivered back to the complainant in OK condition. Thereafter the complainant has never submitted his handset for any kind of repair with authorized service centre. Thus there is no consumer dispute between the complainant and answering opposite party ; that the handset was purchased on 21.4.2017 and the same has been submitted with service centre only once on 17.4.2017 after 11 months of purchasing and extensively using the handset. Copy of job sheet dated 17.4.2017 has been placed on record ; that there is no deficiency of service or breach of contract on the part of the answering opposite party. The answering opposite party has never denied after sale service and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant as per warranty terms and conditions; that there is no inherent defect in the Mobile Set in question. Due to physical damage caused to the Mobile Set in question it is not covered under the warranty and repair is to be done on chargeable basis. The Mobile Set in question is not being properly handled and it was found liquid tampered/physically damaged but complainant has intentionally not disclosed the true facts before this Forum; that the complainant had submitted the handset with service centre and the same was duly checked and reported problem was duly rectified by changing the required parts and handset was returned to the satisfaction of the complainant. The handset in question is perfectly working and is being used by the complainant. On merits, the Opposite Party No.1 took almost same and similar pleas as taken by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 despite due service, hence Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order of this Forum.
4. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents i.e. copy of bill dated 21.4.2016 Ex.C-2, copy of job sheet Ex.C-3, copy of tax/VAT Invoice Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence on behalf of the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager Ex.OP1/1 alongwith copy of warranty card Ex.OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of 1.
6. We have heard the complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
7. In his submissions, the complainant has reiterated the averments made in his complaint and contended that he purchased one Samsung Galaxy J5 Mobile handset vide bill No. 5113 dated 21.4.2016 having EMI No. 356823074767356 and 356824074767354 for Rs.11500/- from Opposite Party No.2 being the dealer of Opposite Party No.1 company and Opposite Party No.3 is Authorised Service Centre and at the time of sale, Opposite Party No.2 gave one year warranty of the product from the date of purchase, in case of any kind of defect or damage to the Mobile Set in question, complainant can get it repair under warranty within one year from the date of purchase from any authorized service centre and only on their assurances, the complainant purchased the Mobile Set in question by spending huge amount. The said mobile handset become non functional as its touch screen stopped working on 17.4.2017. The complainant made complaint of the said defect to opposite party No.3 and they kept the handset with them but after opening the whole set and checking the same, they made telephone call to the complainant and refused to repair the same in warranty and gave estimate of Rs. 3200/- approximately for its repair. As the complainant has no other chose and he paid the said amount of Rs. 3110 after billing and got astonished that opposite party No.3 not only charged for spare part but also charged for labour which is highly injustice to the complainant. On asking warranty of this replaced spare part , they said if complainant face any problem in the replaced part, the complainant can contact to service centre within 6 months from the date of repair or replacement. But after few days touch screen of the same mobile set stopped working and on approaching to service centre, they refused to repair it again under spare part warranty. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant on the ground that the handset was purchased on 21.4.2017 and the same has been submitted with service centre only once on 17.4.2017 after 11 months of purchasing and extensively using the handset. Copy of job sheet dated 17.4.2017 has been placed on record . It was submitted that the answering opposite party has never denied after sale service and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant as per warranty terms and conditions. It was submitted that there is no inherent defect in the Mobile Set in question. Due to physical damage caused to the Mobile Set in question it is not covered under the warranty and repair is to be done on chargeable basis. The Mobile Set in question is not being properly handled and it was found liquid tampered/physically damaged but complainant has intentionally not disclosed the true facts before this Forum. It was submitted that the complainant had submitted the handset with service centre and the same was duly checked and reported problem was duly rectified by changing the required parts and handset was returned to the satisfaction of the complainant. The handset in question is perfectly working and is being used by the complainant. Therefore, there is no breach of contract or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. But however, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 who is seller of the said product nor appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 who is authorised service centre. Non appearance of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 before this Forum despite proper service, shows their malafide and bad intention and high handedness. The evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted against Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 on record.
9. It is not disputed that the Mobile Set in question has been stopped working within warranty period of one year i.e. on 17.4.2017 as it was admittedly purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party No.2 vide bill No. 5113 dated 21.4.2016 (copy of bill accounts for Ex.C2) having EMI No. 356823074767356 and 356824074767354 for Rs.11500/- from Opposite Party No.2 being the dealer of Opposite Party No.1 company and Opposite Party No.3 is Authorised Service Centre. It is also not disputed that the warranty was provided by the company service centre only as fully depicted on the bill itself which is not denied by the Opposite Parties. It is also not disputed that the Mobile Set in question became defective within warranty period of one year i.e on 17.4.2017, copy of job sheet duly issued by Opposite Party No.3- service centre at the time of taking the Mobile Set for its repair, is placed on record Ex.C3. It is also not denied by Opposite Party No.1 that the Mobile Set in question became defective within warranty period but the same became defective after 11 months of its purchase . However, when the complainant approached the authorized service centre i.e. opposite party No.3, they refused to repair the mobile handset and gave estimate of Rs. 3200/- . In this regard the very contention of ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 is that there is breach of warranty terms and conditions as the Mobile Set in question has been damaged due to liquid tampered/physically damaged and the same became defective first time after 11 months of its purchase i.e. on 17.4.2017, as such the same is a warranty void condition and repair was to be done on chargeable basis. The complainant having no other alternative paid the amount of Rs. 3110/- vide Tax Invoice dated 17.4.2017. It was further the case of the complainant that after few days of repair, the touch screen again became defective but on approaching to service centre, they refused to repair it again under spare part warranty. But, however, the opposite party kept silent about the visit of the complainant after 17.4.2017 but it was submitted that they are ready to provide service to the complainant as per warranty terms and conditions. So it was proved on record that the complainant got the handset repaired after spending repair charges to the tune of Rs. 3110/- and in this regard tax invoice Ex.C-4 has been placed on record, which proves that the spare part was replaced to make the mobile handset functional at the cost of the complainant. However, if the complainant again suffered from the same problem i.e. touch screen problem which defect was rectified by the opposite party No.3 on 17.4.2017 on chargeable basis, the opposite party No.3 is liable to set right the mobile handset by replacing the spare part free of costs, if need be. In such a situation, the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 3 are definitely liable to repair the Mobile Set in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging any amount since the Mobile Set in dispute happen to be within warranty period.
10. Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds and the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 3 are directed to repair the Mobile Set in dispute without charging any amount, within one month from the receipt of copy of the order. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Opposite Parties No. 1 and 3 are held liable jointly, severally & co-extensively to comply with the order. However, the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 stands dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 4.4.2018
