Punjab

Sangrur

CC/24/2019

Sachin Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Udit Goyal

01 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 24

 Instituted on:   21.01.2019

                                                                         Decided on:     01.02.2021

 

 

Sachin Singh aged about 26 years son of Nanku Singh, resident of H.No.15/16, Old Grain Market, Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF PH-V, Gurugram (Haryana) through its Managing Director.

2.     M/s. Gaurav Communication, 1^st Floor, Inside Gaushala Road, near Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

3.     Singla Mobile Care, Near Baba Pir, Sangrur Road, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur through its Proprietor.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:             :Shri  Udit Goyal, Adv.              

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

For OP No.2 & 3                 :Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:    Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

 

ORDER:   

 

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

 

1.             Shri Sachin Singh,  complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing a mobile hand set on 7.11.2018 from OP number 3. The OP number 3 assured that the mobile i.e. Galaxy Note 9 (128 GB) is with the special features of Gorilla Glass, which is a scratch free and unbreakable even if it hits with hard surface or even hit with hammer.  The OP number 3 also showed some videos of the said mobile phone uploaded on the YOUTUBE.  It is further averred that the complainant purchased the said mobile i.e. Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (128 GB) from the OP vide invoice number 2762 dated 7.11.2018 for Rs.61,900/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that on 9.12.2018 while the complainant was sitting in the office and when the complainant tried to pick the phone call, then accidentally the mobile phone was slipped from the hand of the complainant and when he picked up the mobile set, then he was shocked to see that the screen of the mobile set had broken and the mobile set became un-functional and showing lines on the screen.  Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the complainant immediately approached OP number 3 for replacement of the mobile set as at the time of selling the mobile set OP had specifically told about the features of Gorilla Glass and also showed the broken screen of mobile set.  The OP number 3 advised the complainant to approach OP number 2.  As such, the complainant on the next day approached OP number 2 and showed the mobile set and requested for its replacement, then the OP number 2 refused to replace the same saying that broken display is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy.  The OP number 2 however admitted that the mobile phone is having Gorilla Glass and refused to entertain the request of the complainant. The complainant got the Photostat copy of the job sheet dated 10.12.2018 and made the endorsement on the job sheet regarding selling of mobile by misrepresentation.  Further case of the complainant is that he spent  huge amount of Rs.61,900/- on the mobile set and the same was broken just within one month from its purchase.  It is further averred that by not replacing the defective mobile set, which is well within the warranty period and sold with misrepresentation of Gorilla Glass, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony and harassment in the hands of the opposite parties.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to refund the purchase price of the above said mobile along with interest, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment, to pay Rs.3,00,000/- for committing unfair trade practice and further to pay Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the opposite parties number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such they were proceeded against exparte.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties, that no cause of action arose to the complainant to file present complaint against the OP. The hand set in question is out of warranty as it has been physically damaged. The display screen of the hand set is broken due to falling of the hand set as admitted by the complainant, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is stated further that as per the warranty conditions in case of physical damage warranty is void and repair if any will be done on chargeable basis.  The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging totally false facts and concealed the true facts. Further it is stated that the performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product.   On merits, the allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied by the OP. Even the purchase of the mobile set vide invoice number 2762 dated 7.11.2018 for Rs.61,900/- has been denied.   It has been denied that the mobile set was sold with any alleged misrepresentation of gorilla glass and it has been also denied that complainant is suffering any harassment and mental agony in the hands of the OPs.  Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on 17.11.2018 the complainant along with his friend approached OP number 3  for purchasing a mobile set and OP number 3 suggested the complainant to purchase Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (128 GB) and the complainant purchased the said mobile for Rs.61,900/- and the same amount was paid by the complainant to the OPs and a warranty was given for one year vide bill dated 7.11.2018.  On 9.12.2018 while the complainant was sitting in the office and when the complainant tried to pick the phone call, accidentally the mobile phone slipped from the hand of the complainant and when the complainant picked up the mobile set, then he was shocked to see that the screen of the mobile set had broken.  The learned counsel further argued that he immediately went to the OP number 2 for replacement of the same, but nothing was done.  As such, the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

 

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the mobile in question was having one year warranty. But in the present case the complainant is himself guilty for damaging the handset in question  and due to that the screen has broken, as such, the OPs are not liable for anything.

 

7.             To prove his case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit wherein he has stated that he was told by the OP number 3 for purchasing the mobile set in question  and the OP number 3 showed the features of the mobile set saying that it has gorilla glass, which is scratch free and unbreakable if it hits with hard surface or even with hammer.

 

8.             In pleadings it is pleaded by the complainant that the OP number 3 suggested the complainant to purchase Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (128 GB), which is having a special feature of Gorilla Glass, which is scratch free and unbreakable if it hit by hammer and video was also shown that glass of the mobile could not be scratched with nails and broken with the hammer. 

 

9.             Admittedly, the mobile set was purchased vide receipt Ex.C-3 dated 07.11.2018 for Rs.61,900/-. It is further pleaded by the complainant that on 09.12.2018, while the complainant was sitting in the office and tried to pick the phone call, then accidentally the mobile set  slipped from the hand of the complainant and the screen was broken.  The complainant has attached Ex.C-5 CD and Ex.C-6 notes of Galaxy Note 9 mobile set.  It is mentioned in that  Samsung Galaxy Note 9 screen is protected in all the way.  In the document Ex.C-7 it is mentioned that it is having a Gorilla Glass.

 

10.            So from the CD and all this it is clear that it was protected by Gorilla Glass and the glass of the mobile set was unbreakable.          The OP on the other hand has stated that the mobile set is out of warranty if the mobile set has been physically mishandled, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

11.            The main document is Ex.C-3 vide which the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 07.11.2018 from the OP number 3, but there is no warranty card on the file to show that it was protected by Gorilla Glass. It was incumbent upon the complainant to prove on record that the mobile set in question is having a special feature of Gorilla Glass, which is scratch free and unbreakable if it will hit with hard surface or even hit with hammer, but this evidence is missing, so the mobile was damaged due to physical mishandling, so new mobile cannot be given but the OPs are duty bound to change the glass/screen of the mobile in question to bring the mobile set in working condition. 

 

12.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to replace the glass/screen of the mobile set in question and to make the mobile set in working condition.  In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        February 1, 2021.

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                  President