Punjab

Sangrur

CC/449/2018

Manpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.G.S.Shergill

06 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR .

 

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 449

 Instituted on:   29.10.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     06.09.2019

 

Manpreet Singh son of Bir Singh, resident of Village Tolewal, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.   

                                                 Versus

1.     Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044 through its M.D.

2.     Golden Gift & Antique House, College Road, Malerkotla through its Prop/partner.

3.     Shree Sai Communication SCO No.1A&2A, 1^st Floor, Railway Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.

             ….Opposite parties. 

 

 

Counsel for the complainant : Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.              

Counsel for the OP No.1       : Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

Counsel for the OP No.2       : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

Counsel for the OP No.3       : Exparte.

 

 

Quorum                                          

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

Shri Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

ORDER BY:     

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.

 

1.             The complainant filed this complaint pleading that the complainant purchased one mobile Samsung Galaxy J-7 EMI No.357151-08-399130 from OP number 2 vide invoice number 2702 dated 25.7.2017 for Rs.10,500/-, which was having one year guarantee/warranty for any type of defect therein.  The grievance of the complainant is that after some days, the mobile set started giving problems i.e. touch button not working and speaker problem, as such the complainant approached OP number 2, who advised to approach OP number 3. Further on 18.9.2017 the complainant visited OP number 3, who told the complainant to get back the mobile set on next week after repairs and the complainant visited OP number 3, who told the complainant to pay Rs.5000/- for repairs of the mobile set.  The complainant requested OP number 3 that the mobile set is under warranty and that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set, but the OP number 3 flatly refused to entertain the request of the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice dated 22.3.2018 upon the OPs, but all in vain. Lastly, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set with a new one of the same make and model or in the alternative refund the price of the said mobile i.e. Rs.10,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization and to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for inconvenience, harassment and mental agony and an amount of Rs.33,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             After the notice being served upon the opposite parties, the opposite party number 1 appeared through Advocate Shri J.S.Sahni and filed written version. In written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the present complaint with mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich him at the cost of the OP by filing frivolous complaint.  It is stated that there is a breach of warranty terms and conditions as the handset has been found “liquid logged’ due to which PBA board of handset has damaged due to water ingress in the hand set, due to water damage the hand set was not covered under warranty and repair will be done on chargeable basis but the complainant refused to pay the charges, as such, the OP refused to repair the same.  It is stated that the complainant is not entitle to any relief from the OP as he has come to the Forum by concealing true and material facts.  It is stated further that the liquid damage mobile is not covered under any warranty.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.  On merits, the sale and purchase of the mobile set is admitted. It is stated that it is a matter of record that the complainant approached OP number 3 on 18.9.2017 and the OP number 3 issued the job sheet to the complainant. Op number 3 checked the hand set and found its PBA board damaged due to liquid logging which is a warranty void condition. It is denied that the OP number 3 refused to return the mobile set to the complainant. Rather complainant himself did not take back his mobile phone from OP number 3. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied by OP.

3.             After the notice being served upon the opposite party number 2, the opposite party number 2 appeared through Advocate Shri Rohit Jain and filed written version. In written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is stated that after the purchase of the mobile set the complainant never visited the OP regarding any alleged complaint.  It is denied that the complainant sent any legal notice to the OP number 3. Lastly, the OP number 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

4.             Record shows that OP number 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 3 was proceeded exparte on 19.12.2018.

5.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. The opposite party number 1 has produced documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/4 and closed evidence. The Opposite party number 2 has produced documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/2 and closed evidence.  

6.             We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record by the parties as well as heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant purchased one mobile set Samsung Galaxy J-7 having IMEI No.357151-08-399130 from OP number 2 vide invoice number 2702 dated 25.7.2017 for Rs.10,500/-, a copy of which is on record Ex.C-1 and the mobile set was having one year guarantee/warranty for any type of defect therein.  The grievance of the complainant is that after some days, the mobile set started giving problems i.e. touch button not working and speaker problem, as such the complainant approached OP number 2, who advised to approach OP number 3. Further on 18.9.2017 the complainant visited OP number 3, who told the complainant to get back the mobile set on next week after repairs and the complainant visited OP number 3, who told the complainant to pay Rs.5000/- for repairs of the mobile set.  The complainant requested OP number 3 that the mobile set is under warranty and that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set, but the OP number 3 flatly refused to entertain the request of the complainant. As such, the complainant has prayed for replacement of the mobile set with a new one. 

8.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has contended that there is a breach of warranty terms and conditions as the handset has been found “liquid logged’ due to which PBA board of handset has damaged due to water ingress in the hand set, due to water damage the hand set was not covered under warranty and repair will be done on chargeable basis but the complainant refused to pay the charges, as such, the OP refused to repair the same.  It is stated that the complainant is not entitled to any relief from the OP. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has also contended that after purchase of the mobile set, the complainant never visited OP number 2 with any complaint in the mobile set.

9.               Ex.C-1 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 2 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.10,500/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question which entitles him to avail the after sale services of the OP number 2, which has been manufactured by OP number 1.

10.           In the present case, the complainant has alleged that during the warranty period on 18.9.2017 the set in question suffered the problem of touch button and speaker not working and as such he approached OP number 2 but neither the mobile was repaired nor the mobile was replaced with a new one to the satisfaction of the complainant rather the mobile was kept by OP with it. nothing was done by the OP number 2 despite repeated visits of the complainant. Further to show that the mobile set in question is defective one, the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-3 the copy of service order, which shows that there was problem of touch button and speaker.  On the other hand,  the OPs have produced nothing on the record to show that the mobile set in question is water logged. The photograph Ex.OP1/3 produced by the OP number 1 nowhere proves that the mobile set in question is water logged one and is beyond repairs during the warranty period.    As such, we are of the considered opinion that the mobile set in question became defective during the warranty period, which was even not repaired by the Ops despite repeatedly visiting of the complainant to the OP number 2.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the same was not repaired nor the Ops showed any interest during the present proceedings to hand over the repaired mobile set to the complainant. As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops and we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with a new one. The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and  litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

11.           This complaint could not be decided and order could not be pronounced within stipulated time period because post of President is vacant since 7.8.2018 and Lady Member since 16.09.2018. The President is doing additional duty only for two days a week.

                        Pronounced.

                        September 6, 2019.

 

        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)                   (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

                   Member                                      President