Haryana

StateCommission

A/353/2019

MANGAL CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONIC PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

28 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.353 of 2019

                                                 Date of Institution: 15.04.2019

                                                        Date of Final Hearing: 08.08.2022

Date of pronouncement: 28.10.2022

Mangal  Chand S/o Shri Naresh Kumar, R/o Takuron Ki Bagri, Ward No.16, H.No.468, Bhiwani,Tehsil & Distt. Bhiwani.

…..Appellant

Versus

General Manager, Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., 20^th  24^th Floor Two Horizon Centre Golf Course Road,Sector-43, DLF, Phase-V, Gurugram, Haryana.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    None for the appellant.

                   Ms.Simranjeet Singh, counsel for respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 03 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.    

2.      The present appeal No.353 of 2019 has been filed against the order dated 28.02.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.150 of 2017, which was dismissed.

3.       The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Samsung S 8 mobile phone from Bhiwani on 03.05.2017 for Rs.57,900/-. The charger and earphone of the cellphone became defective on 05.10.2017.  Complainant approached the OP No.2 for replacement of the same. On 05.10.2017, the complainant deposited the mobile set  as per the assurance of Mr.Sunil Kumar, Manager of OP No.2. Thereafter complainant asked Ms. Pooja, Technical Assistant of OPs about status of mobile set , but, she did not inform anything till date. In the job sheet, the mobile set was shown dead + some time not working, which was not correct.  OPs have returned the mobile set with small scratch on it but the same still suffering the same problem of getting switch off at its own. The warranty of the cellphone was upto 02.05.2018.  The OP service centre has formatted the mobile, which was not necessary for the replacement of the earphone and charger.   He further alleged that OP service centre has accepted cash payment from the consumers and no POS machine was available with them.  The complainant requested the OPs to replace the phone or amount of the mobile phone, but, they did not consider the genuine request of the complainant. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.

4.      OP No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 27.11.2017.

5.      OP No.3 filed written statement and denying the allegations made by him. The complainant approached the service centre on 05.10.2017 and 12.10.2017 and reported dead, sometime not work, charger and data cable not working problems in the unit. The engineer checked the unit, found that PBA and Tape kit of the unit was burnt and same was got replaced and also software of the unit got updated and unit started working in complete OK condition and after that the complainant never reported any issue. The company provides one year warranty on the unit, warranty means in case of any problem, the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per warranty policy. The warranty becomes void if liquid logged/water logging, physically damage, serial no. missing, tampering and mishandling/ burnt etc. As per the condition of the warranty replacement of product or refund was expressly excluded and warranty covers only repair or replacement of part.    It was also submitted that answering OP was and is ready to provide services as preconditions of warranty regarding the unit, so there was no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. Objections about  non joinder of necessary party, territorial jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

6.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Bhiwani has dismised the complaint vide order dated 28.02.2019.

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

8.      None has appeared on behalf of the appellant. The argument has been advanced by Ms.Simranjit Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. With her kind assistance the entire record of the appeal as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

9.      An email has been received on 06.08.2022 from the side of the appellant in which he stated that he could not appear before this commission and requested for decision based on the documents. The mobile phone was still deposited in the service centre Samsung on 06.08.2022. In this mail he prayed that  appeal may be allowed and respondents may directed to pay the amount of the mobile phone of the appellant alongwith interest.

10.    Learned counsel for the opposite parties-respondent No.3 argued that complainant approached the service centre on 05.10.2017 and 12.10.2017 with the complaint of mobile sometime not work, charger and data cable not working and problems in the unit. The engineer checked the unit and found that PBA and Tape kit of the unit was burnt and same was got replaced and also software of the unit got updated following which the unit started working perfectly in OK condition and after that the complainant never reported any issue. The company provides one year warranty on the unit, which means in case of any problem, the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per warranty policy. The warranty becomes void, if  cell phone is  found to be liquid logged/water logging, physically damage, serial no. missing, tampering and mishandling/ burnt etc. As per the condition of the warranty replacement of product or refund was expressly excluded and warranty covers only repair or replacement of part.    It was also argued that respondent was and is still ready to provide services as pre-conditions of warranty regarding the unit.

11.    The complainant alleged in the complaint about dressing sense of security guard, salary of the employee, which is not the issue of the complainant.   In his complaint, the complainant also alleged that OP service centre has accepted the cash payment from the consumers and no POS machine was available with him.
The above said issues of the complainant have no relevancy.

12.    According to Job Sheet Card  dated 05.10.2017, the defect description of the unit was as under:-

“Dead +H/F sometime not work +charger and Data Cable not working some time”

          As per the above said description, the complainant had some mobile related issues like date cable not working H/F sometime not work.  In response to complainant’s email, the OPs informed him that utilization of maximum storage from internal memory, might be the reason for temporary hanging of his device and OPs recommended the complainant to delete some of the downloaded data from his phone for better performance as internal space should be 20% free or transfer data to SD card via My files.  The engineer checked the unit and found that PBA and Tape kit of the unit was burnt and same was got replaced and also software of the unit got updated following which unit started working in complete OK condition and after that the complainant never reported any problem. The company provides one year warranty on the unit, which means in case of any problem, the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per warranty policy. The warranty becomes void, if his handset is found to be liquid logged/water logging, physically damage, serial no. missing, tampering and mishandling/ burnt etc. As per the condition of the warranty replacement of product or refund of its costs was expressly excluded and warranty covers only repair or replacement of part.  The appellant has not placed on record any document, which will show the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.   O.P.No.3 admitted that it was and is ready to provide services as pre-conditions of warranty regarding the unit. Learned District Commission was fully justified when it dismissed the complaint.

13.    Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant in his grounds of appeal and other communications stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence,  the appeal  stands dismissed.

14.    Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

15.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

16.    File be consigned to record room.

 

 

28^th October, 2022  Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)