Punjab

Hoshiarpur

CC/14/239

Vikram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronic Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Miss. Indu Bala

26 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOSHIARPUR

(3RD FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, HOSHIARPUR)

C.C. No. 239 /03.11.2014

Decided on : 26.02.2015

Vikram son of Inder Raj Bhalla, Street No.3, Ward No.1, Mohallan Naryan Nagar, Hoshiarpur.

Complainant

vs.

1. Samsung India Electronic Pvt Ltd.,R/o.B-1, Sector 81, Phase II, Noida Distt. Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh through its M.D.

2. Gautam Enterprises Sutheri Road, Hoshiarpur.

3. M/s Samsung Authorized Service Center R/o D-S, 470 Mall Road, Opposite Income Tax, Hoshiarpur through its authorized Manager.

Opposite parties

Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Naveen Puri,President.

Mrs.Vandna Choudhary, Member.

Mrs. Sushma Handoo,Member.

 

Present: Ms.Aarti Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

Sh.S.K.Rayat, counsel for the OP Nos. 1,3.

Sh Amar Malik, counsel for OP No.2.

 

ORDER

PER SUSHMA HANDOO MEMBER

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd. through its M.D. and others (hereinafter referred to as OP No.1, OP No.2 & OP No.3 respectively, for short) praying for a direction to the OPs to provide new Samsung Galaxi Star Pro S7262 to the complainant or to refund the total consideration of Rs.6,500/- alongwith compensation of Rs.10,000/- for inconvenience and harassment suffered by him and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs .

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased the Samsung Mobile handset Model No.S7262 Galaxi Star Pro for Rs.6,500/- from OP No.2 on 14.12.2013 who is dealer of OP No.1 and OP No.3 is authorized repair centre of Samsung mobile at Hoshiarpur. It is averred that the mobile purchased by the complainant is having warranty of one year from the date of purchase and during the warranty period, the complainant neither misused the mobile set in dispute nor any damage done by him during its use. It is further averred that after a month of its purchase, the mobile handset started problems of mick, screen blank display, used to be hanged, heat up,switch off, network and sometime while charging the set shows error ( not charging). In the month of January, 2014 the mobile set stopped working and nothing was visible on screen. The complainant immediately approached OP No.2 for repair but they expressed their inability to repair the mobile in dispute . Thereafter, complainant approached OP no. 3 to repair the phone properly but it flatly refused to do so while saying there is no defect in handset. Complainant had purchased new mobile for his use but there is manufacturing defect/technical fault in it. Thus, OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice on their part. Hence this complaint.

3. On notice, OP No.1 filed contested written statement taking routine preliminary objections including territorial jurisdiction. On merits, it is replied that complainant purchased Samsung mobile phone for Rs.6,500/- from OP No.2 on 14.12.2013 and warranty of one year was provided from the date of purchase subject to terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty card. It is denied that immediately after purchase of mobile it started giving trouble of mick, screen blank display, used to hanged, heat up , switch off , network and showed error while charging. It is also denied that in the month of January, 2014 mobile set stopped working or nothing was visible on screen. It is further denied that complainant immediately went to OP No.2 for repair of mobile and they expressed their inability to repair the mobile in dispute. It is replied that OP No.2 is only retailer of mobile phones and is neither competent nor authorized to repair the mobile phones and only authorized service centres are competent to repair the mobile phones . It is denied that complainant approached OP No.3 for repair of the phone who flatly refused to do so while saying there is no defect in handset. It is also denied that there is manufacturing defect/technical fault in the handset. It is replied that if complainant does not agree with the contentions of OPs, Forum may direct the complainant to submit his handset with the authorized service center for inspection and expert opinion regarding the exact condition of the handset as required under the law. It is denied that the OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice. It is further denied that complainant is entitled to get new mobile or refund of Rs.6,500/- alongwith compensation. The alleged problems occurred in the handset due to mishandling on the part of complainant . Moreover, under warranty, answering OP is only liable to repair or replace only the defective parts of the product in question. The complainant has failed to prove on record that hand set in question cannot be repaired, thus he is not entitled for replacement or refund of price. As there is no deficiency in service on their part so, complaint filed by complainant is liable to be dismissed.

4. OP No.2 filed a separate reply taking routine preliminary objections. On merits, it is replied that complainant never visited OP No.2 after the purchase of mobile set in question for any repair and false complaint has been filed just to harass it. Further, in case of any fault in the mobile set, the complainant is required to approach service centre of the company.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. C-1, invoice Mark C-2 and closed the evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, OP Nos.1 & 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Shriniwas Joshi Ex. OP-1,3/1 and closed the evidence whereas, OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vikas Gautam Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

8. Learned counsel for the parties have argued on the lines of their pleadings.

9. We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record.

10. Counsel for the OPs has argued that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint . However, the bill dated 14.12.2013 Mark C-2 goes to show that complainant has purchased the mobile from Hoshiarpur. So , this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.

11. Admittedly, the mobile in question was purchased from OP No.2 for Rs.6,500/- on 14.12.2013 vide bill Mark C-2 . Learned counsel for the complainant contented that after a month of purchase of mobile in question, it started giving problems of mick, screen blank display, used to be hanged, heat up,switch off, network and sometime while charging the set shows error ( not charging). The complainant many a times approached OPs for repair who expressed their inability to repair the mobile in dispute . These allegations have been refuted by the counsel for the OPs and further contended that alleged problems occurred in the handset due to mishandling on the part of complainant and expert opinion is required to prove the same. Moreover, under warranty, OPs are liable to repair or replace only the defective parts of the product in question thus, complainant is not entitled for replacement or refund of price.

12. Counsel for the OPs has taken objection that complainant has neither alleged specific manufacturing defect nor proved it by any expert opinion. In ruling placed on record by the OPs reported as 2012 NCJ 917 (NC) Sukhwinder Singh vs. Classic Automobiles, Shastri Nagar, Jharkhand, the Hon'ble National Commission has held that to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle, report of expert is essential whereas in the present complaint defect is not with regard to the vehicle where the huge amount is involved. Learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that alleged problems occurred due to mishandling of the mobile by the complainant but no evidence has been led by the OPs in this respect. The problems in the mobile set occurred after one month of its purchase i.e. within warranty period. The complainant has no occasion to file this complaint to harass the OPs as no enmity is alleged or proved by the OPs. The facts and circumstances of the present case themselves prove that there is manufacturing and inherent defect in the mobile set. In this way, deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is writ large in so far as the present case is concerned and the complainant is found entitled to the main relief alongwith appropriate compensation and litigation costs.

13. In view of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by complainant is partly accepted with a direction to the OPs to refund Rs.6,500/-, the cost of the mobile set to the complainant and to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation costs within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.8,500/- from the date of complaint i.e. 03.11.2014 till realization. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced.

26.02.2015

 

(Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary) (Mrs. Sushma Handoo) (Naveen Puri)

Member                            Member                        President

SS