Haryana

Karnal

CC/147/2017

Rajpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

14 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No.147 of 2017

                                                    Date of instt.: 27.4.2017

                                                     Date of decision:14.11.2017

 

Rajpal son of Shri Rajbir Singh resident of house no.427, Gali no.3, Moti Nagar Karnal.

 

                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Vs.

1.Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square Golf Course, Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana Pin 122002. Office Telephone no.0124-4881234, 4881212.

2. Service Centre: 0008335197 Telus Global Verifacts Solutions Address: shop no.21,21,22 Asa Ram Market, Karnal (132001) Contact Centre 18003008282, 9210222228, 7988694936.

 

                                                                     .… Opposite Parties.

 

                  Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before      Sh.Jagmal Singh……….President.

                Ms. Veena Rani……..Member

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-  Complainant in person.

                 Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Adv. for opposite parties.

                 

                 (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased a Mobile Set J24G from M/s Vansh Sales, Nehru Place, Karnal for a sum of Rs.7600/-, vide invoice no.680 dated 18.6.2016. The mobile set was activated on 21.6.2016. It is further alleged that on 3.3.2017 the half portion of touch screen stopped working. He lodged a complaint with the OP no.2 in that regard. OP no.2 kept the mobile set for repair and in that regard issued a job sheet with the following remarks:-

A      Warranty status-full warrantee,

B      Touch not working, after that they have added ‘Hanging’ by pen only.

 

 A telephonic message received by him from the office of OP no.2 on next day that the hand set was not okay and remarked “liquid lock”. Due to liquid lock he was liable to pay charges against repair Rs.3600/- but no liquid seen in the hand set. OPs also had taken a plea that their engineer cleaned the liquid and instruct him to contact the customer care toll free number if he agree to repair the handset in warranty period. They also sent fabricated and false story because there was liquid problem and sent the picture after editing in their favorites. Toll free number also indicate them engineer not authorized to clean liquid without showing to customer.   He requested them to click picture again but they flatly refused sending picture again. Their behavior was very rudely and not like customer care. Due to improper response online helpline registered the complaint no.8468873353 and assured him the problem would be solved very seen within 24 hours, but no response for 2-3 days and after contact they said that the complaint was forwarded to BSM, ASM and other official and at last he received a mail from Saptasree Katiyer that the said hand set could not be repaired under warranty but not given any liquid lock reason as customer care Karnal alleged. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to non-joinder of parties; territorial jurisdiction; not come with clean hands and an abuse of process of law. On merits, it has been admitted fact that the complainant has purchased a mobile set of OP company. It has been submitted that the warranty status shown on the job sheet is according to the date of purchase as the company provides one year warranty from the date of purchase of the unit. In case of complainant the warranty of the unit has got barred due to the liquid logging as the complainant has approached to the answering OP on 3.3.2017 vide complaint no.4231866936 after about nine months and reported some touch issue. The engineer of the company checked the unit and found that the unit is damaged due to liquid logged. The unit is barred by warranty due to water logging and the repair of the unit would be on paid basis and estimate letter of repair dated 15.3.2017 given to the complainant. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPS and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 5.9.2017.

4.             On the other hand, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose Ex.RA1 and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 3.10.2011.

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

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased a Samsung Mobile on 18.6.2016, vide invoice Ex.C3 for Rs.7600/-. The said mobile set became defective and same was deposited with OP no.2, vide job sheet dated 3.3.2017, the copy of which is Ex.C2 with problem of Touch Not Work (Restart hanging problem). According to OP No.2 on checking by the Engineer of the OP no.2, the mobile set was found water logged so the warrantee became void and estimate was prepared to repair the set on payment basis. The complainant was informed accordingly. In this regard the OPs placed on the file Ex.R-2, wherein the name of Engineer is mentioned as Nirmal Singh. On perusal of Ex.R2, it is found that this document/report did not bear the signature of the Engineer namely Nirmal Singh rather the same was signed by some other person. The OPs have neither placed on the file the report of the concerned engineer nor produced his affidavit. So without report of Engineer and his affidavit, the document Ex.R2 is not sufficient to prove that the mobile set was water logged. Otherwise the mobile set was within warrantee as admitted by the OPS that the same was within warrantee from the date of purchase and so is mentioned in the job sheet. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of considered view that the OPs have failed to prove on the file that the mobile set was water logged and have wrongly refused to repair the same on warrantee basis. Hence the OPs are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

7.             As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPS to repair the mobile set in question free of costs as the same was within warrantee. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.1100/- on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation charges. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 14.11.2017

                                                                        (Jagmal Singh)

                                                                           President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)       (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                Member