DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.472 of 30-10-2013

Decided on 20-02-2014

Kuldeep Singh aged about 30 years S/o Manjeet Singh R/o VPO Kotha Guru, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

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

2.Sodhi Mobile Repair Centre, Pannu Market, Bhagta Bhai Ka, District Bathinda, through its Proprietor.

3.Shri Ram Tele Services, SCF 62, 1st Floor, near Hotel Amsun Pride, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Proprietor.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Puneet Garg, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Kuljit Pal Sharma, counsel for the opposite party Nos.1

and 3.

Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased one mobile handset make Samsung Star Duos bearing IMEI No.3553170433924934 for Rs.10,000/- vide bill No.000583 dated 18.9.2012 from the opposite party No.2, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 with one year warranty. At the time of selling of the abovesaid mobile handset, the opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that in case of any fault/defect in it, it would be replaced with new one of the same model. After the purchase of the abovesaid mobile handset, it started giving the problems as it developed snags i.e. call not pick sometime, auto switch off, hanging, call auto end sometime. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2, it asked him to approach the opposite party No.3. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3, it repaired the mobile handset in question vide job sheet dated 17.8.2013 and gave him the assurance regarding the removing of all the defects and proper functioning. Thereafter the abovesaid mobile handset again starting giving the problems relating to hanging and screen used to open any function and go off all of a sudden in the pocket. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and complaint it regarding the alleged problems and requested it to replace the abovesaid mobile handset with new one as there is manufacturing defect in it. The opposite party No.3 retained the mobile handset in question with it vide job sheet dated 2.9.2013 and assured the complainant that it would repair the same and if the abovesaid mobile handset would give problem again in it, it would replace the same. The abovesaid mobile handset again started giving the problem as its all keys and touch screen were not working. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 on dated 20.9.2013 and requested it to replace the defective mobile handset in question with new one as there is manufacturing defect in it. The opposite party No.3 retained the mobile handset in question vide job sheet dated 20.9.2013 and promised the complainant to replace it with new one but later on it refused to replace the abovesaid mobile handset. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties either to replace the mobile handset in question with new one or in alternative to refund its price alongwith interest, cost and compensation and to give him any other additional relief for which he may be found entitled to.

2. The opposite party No.1 and 3 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that as per their information the complainant approached the authorized service centre on dated 17.8.2013 i.e. after the lapse of 11 months from the date of the purchase of the mobile handset in question with the problem of software that has duly been rectified and the abovesaid mobile handset has been delivered back to him in OK condition. The complainant again approached the service centre on dated 2.9.2013 with the problem of vibrator not working, auto off in pocket that has duly been rectified by it and the mobile handset in question has been delivered back to the complainant in the perfect working condition without any charges, which shows that the abovesaid mobile handset is fully operational. However, as a goodwill gesture the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are still ready to render the service with regard to the mobile handset in question, if required. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect or inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of Central Approved Laboratories in support of his allegations. The complainant has sought the replacement or refund of the mobile handset in question that is not permissible under the law and the terms of warranty. The replacement or refund is only permissible where the defect developed during the warranty period is of such a nature that cannot be cured or repaired. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are not responsible for the defect that occurs after the expiry of the warranty period.

3. Registered notice has been sent to the opposite party No.2 on dated 23.11.2013 vide postal receipt No.A RP319411275IN but despite receiving the summons, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2 before this Forum, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against it.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. The complainant has purchased the abovesaid mobile handset on dated 18.9.2012, it became defective on dated 17.8.2013, the defects were relating to 'call not pick sometime, auto switch off, hanging, call auto end sometime'. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 with the said problems, it repaired the mobile handset in question vide job sheet dated 17.8.2013 and gave him the assurance regarding the removing of all the defects and proper functioning, but again the abovesaid mobile handset started hanging and its screen used to open any function and go off all of a sudden in the pocket. The complainant requested the opposite party No.3 to replace the abovesaid mobile handset with new one as there is manufacturing defect in it. The opposite party No.3 retained the mobile handset in question with it vide job sheet dated 2.9.2013 and assured the complainant that it would repair the abovesaid mobile handset and if the same would give problem again, it would replace the abovesaid mobile handset with new one. The abovesaid mobile handset again started giving the problem as its keys and touch screen were not working. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 on dated 20.9.2013 and requested it to replace the defective mobile handset in question with new one as there is manufacturing defect in it. The opposite party No.3 retained the mobile handset in question vide job sheet dated 20.9.2013 and promised the complainant to replace it with new one but nothing has been done and since then the mobile handset in question is in the possession of the opposite party No.3.

7. As per the version of the complainant the defect was developed in his mobile handset and he approached the opposite party No.3 on dated 17.8.2013. The job sheet dated 17.8.2013, Ex.C2, shows that the defects in the mobile handset in question were regarding 'Call not pick sometime, auto off, hang call auto end sometime', these defects have occurred in it after the lapse of 11 months of its

purchase, which is evident from Ex.C2 and admitted by the complainant himself, meaning thereby for 11 months the complainant has used the mobile handset in question without any interruption or defect. In these 11 months the complainant has taken the optimum use of the mobile handset in question. Thereafter the defects occurred in the abovesaid mobile handset on dated 2.9.2013, as per job sheet dated 2.9.2013, Ex.C3, the defects were regarding 'Hang open any function, auto off in pocket', these defects have been rectified and the opposite party No.3 handed over the mobile handset in question to the complainant. Again the mobile handset in question was worked for 18 months i.e. upto 20.9.2013, this time as per the job sheet dated 20.9.2013, Ex.C4, the defects were regarding 'All keys not work, touch not working (PBA problem or Lock key)'.

8. From the above evidence placed on file it is clear that the problem occurred in the mobile handset in question after the lapse of 11 months of its purchase, which was rectified on dated 17.8.2013, again the problem occurred on dated 2.9.2013 that has been rectified and thereafter the problems occurred on dated 20.9.2013 and since 20.9.2013 the abovesaid mobile handset is lying with the opposite party No.3, this shows the defect regarding the 'PBA' occurred in the abovesaid mobile handset and the complainant has used it for 11 months without any problem, hence the replacement of the mobile handset in question or the refund of its price cannot be given to the complainant, thus it will meet the ends of justice if this complaint be partly accepted with some cost and compensation and the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 be directed to replace the PBA/Lock Key of the abovesaid mobile handset.

9. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are directed to replace the PBA/Lock Key of the abovesaid mobile handset and after rectifying all the defects in it, the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 will handover the mobile handset in question that is already in the possession of the opposite party No.3, with the extended warranty of 6 months to the complainant.

10. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

20-02-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member