Haryana

Karnal

CC/175/2017

Prabhu Dayal Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Pardeep Saini

20 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.175 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt.18.05.2017

                                                         Date of decision:20.04.2018

 

Prabhu Dayal Saini son of Shri Mangat Ram Saini resident of House no.1180, Sector-6, Karnalo.

                                                                                                                                                                …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

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

2. M/s Krishna Traders, shop no.20, Sector 6, Karnal.

3. Samsung Service Centre, Saini Colony, Model Town, Karnal through its Work Manager.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

             

 

 Present  Shri Pardeep Saini Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for OPs no.1 & 3.

               Shri Manoj Rana Advocate for OP no.2.

       

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant purchased  a Samsung Guru FM Plus Mobile for a sum of Rs.1400/-, vide bill no.441` dated 15.03.2017 from OP no.2 with the warranty of one year. OP no.3 is the authorized service centre of the OP no.1. OP no.1 is the manufacturer of the said phone. After 25 days of its purchase, the said mobile automatic turnoff without getting command by the complainant and also did not charge. Complainant approached the OP no.2 and requested him to repair the mobile set. Thereafter, on 1.5.2017 complainant approached the OP no.3 the authorized service centre of the company for repair of the mobile set and OP no.3 issued a Token no.S-183. OP no.3 checked the mobile set and demanded Rs.970/-. Complainant requested the OP no.3 the mobile set was within warranty and he is not liable to pay the said demanded amount for repair of the mobile set. But OP no.3 flatly refused to repair the mobile set free of cost and return back the said un-repaired mobile to the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OPs no.1 and 3 appeared and filed written statement stating therein that OP no.2 is not an authorized dealer of Samsun India Electronics. It is further stated that the company provides one year warranty on the unit and four year comprehensive warranty only for the compressor of the unit, warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per the warranty policy and the warranty of the unit. The warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions:

1.  Liquid logged/water logging. 2. Physically damage. 3. Serial number missing. 4. Tampering 5. Mishandling/Burnt etc. The M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. has a system to lodge online complaint with the system of OPs for each and every IMEI/ Serial number but in the present complaint, as per limited details provided, no such complaint has been found registered with the answering OP with regard to the unit in question. It is further stated that the OPs are always ready to provide services as per the warranty policy, thus there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs no.1 and 3. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed is separate written statement stating therein that the mobile set in question was under warranty and OP no.2 referred the complainant to authorized Samsung Service Centre because as per company terms and conditions if there is any technical default in any product of said company, the authorized service centre will remove the same. It is pertinent to mention here that OP no.2 gave an another mobile phone handset to the complainant for one month for use on the request of complainant because complainant told to the OP that he has no phone set for his use and when technical defect of mobile set will remove then complainant will return the same to OP no.2. It is further stated that complainant visited at the shop of OP no.2 only one time when he took an another phone without giving any security/money, when OP no.2 demanded his phone back then complainant refused to return the same and filed the said complaint. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 4.1.2018.

5.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 4.4.2018.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that complainant  purchased a mobile set Samsung Guru FM Plus from OP no.2 on 15.3.2017 for a sum of Rs.1400/-. The allegations of the complainant is that after 25 days of its purchase, the mobile set started creating problem of  automatic turnoff without getting any command, so he reported the matter to OP no.2 and thereafter to OP no.3, the authorized service centre of the company, who kept the mobile for rectification of defect, but did not rectify the same. In support of his version complainant filed only his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copy of bill Ex.C1. But no job sheet has been produced by the complainant, which may indicate that the complainant approached the OPs no.2 and 3 and complained about the defects in his mobile phone.  The complainant has not produced any document, which may show that the complainant ever lodged complaint regarding defects in the mobile set to any of the OPs in writing on in toll free number. Under such circumstances, mere allegations made by the complainant regarding defects in the mobile are not sufficient to establish prime-facie any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 

8.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:20.04.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                      (Anil Sharma)

                          Member