DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/195

Date of Institution : 15.03.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 05.07.2022

Neelam Rani wife of Rajesh Kumar resident of House No. 72, Gali No. 3, Sunder Nagar, Amritsar. 

  …Complainant

Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, Regd. Office A-25 Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-11004 through its Managing Director.

2. Ankit Mobile Gallery, Chowk Hussainpura, GT Road, Amritsar through its Prop.

3. Customer Care and Service Centre, Chowk Hussainpura, GT Road, Amritsar through its Manager.

…Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 and 13 of The Consumer Protection Act

Present: Ms. Raj Gund Adv counsel for complainant.

Ms. Preeti Mahajan Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Opposite parties No. 2 and 3 exparte.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg  : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act against Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, New Delhi and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that opposite party No. 1 is manufacturer, opposite party No. 2 is authorized dealer and opposite party No. 3 is authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1. The complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy J7 Pro Mobile Phone from the opposite party vide bill dated 28.1.2018 for a sum of Rs. 20,500/- and paid the said amount to the opposite party. The said mobile phone immediately after the purchase started creating problems and display of said phone is not working properly. The complainant made the complaint to the opposite party No. 3 vide complaint No. 3725253842 on customer care. But the customer care return the same with the same condition without getting the same in proper working condition and also refused to change the same with new one. The complainant requested the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 to change the mobile phone as the defect is manufacturing defect but they flatly refused to change the same which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following relief.-

1) The opposite parties be directed to change the mobile phone of the complainant. 

2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses. 

4) Any other relief to which the complainant found entitled. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 filed written version taking preliminary objections that the handset of the complainant is perfectly working as it has been submitted with the opposite party No. 3 with any kind of problem till date. The answering opposite party has checked its record and record of opposite party No. 3 and no repair history has been found about the handset. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party. There is no inherent defect in the handset. The answering opposite party or its service centre has never denied after sales service and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant subject to warranty terms and conditions. The complainant has neither alleged any specific manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. report of independent expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of alleged submission under law that in the absence of any duly qualified independent expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed. But no such report has been produced by the complainant. As per condition of warranty replacement of the product or refund is expressly excluded and warranty covers only repair or replacement of any part thereof which needs replacement or repair for any reasons of defective workmanship or defective component which makes it clear that there is defect in a part it shall only be repaired and or replaced by the opposite parties. In case of damage the product can only be repaired on chargeable basis paid by the customer. 

4. On merits, it is denied that complainant immediately made complaint to opposite party No. 3 vide alleged complaint No. 3725253842 on customer care the alleged receipt placed on record is a fabricated hand filled receipt which has been filled by the complainant herself. If the handset is submitted at service center i.e. opposite party No. 3 they issue a computer generated job sheet giving the details of the handset and the reported problems faced by the customers. But the complainant has failed to mention about any job sheet issued by opposite party No. 3 which shows that complainant never submitted her handset with the opposite party No. 3 with any kind of problem. There is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 1. Lastly, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

5. The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 preferred to remain exparte. 

6. In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, bill Ex.C-1, original customer information slip Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence. 

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Anup Kumar Mathur Director Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence.  

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file. 

9. The complainant proved on the file vide bill dated 28.1.2018 Ex.C-1 that she purchased the mobile handset from the opposite party No. 2 for Rs. 20,500/-. The opposite party No. 1 has taken two specific objections firstly that if the complainant submitted the handset with the service center i.e. opposite party No. 3 they issued a computer generated job sheet giving the details of the handset and the reported problems faced by the customers and the second objection is that the complainant has not filed any expert report to prove the manufacturing defect in her mobile which is necessary to prove the same. 

10. We have perused the record on the file very carefully. The complainant has not filed any job sheet to prove that she submitted her mobile set with the opposite party No. 3 for its repair due to some defect alleged in the complaint, which also proved that the complainant never approached the opposite party No. 3 for repair of its mobile. However, the complainant filed a Customer Information Slip Ex.C-2 which is filled by the complainant herself and cannot be considered as receipt of mobile phone for repair by the opposite party No. 3.

11. Secondly, the complainant has not filed report of any expert to prove the manufacturing defect in the mobile set without which she cannot prove the manufacturing defect in her mobile. 

12. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi held in case titled Pawan Kumar Versus M/s Nissan Motors India Private Limited bearing Revision Petition No. 2276 of 2017 decided on 3.1.2018 that “Petitioner has failed to place on record any expert opinion regarding alleged manufacturing defect in his vehicle. Deficiency not proved.”

13. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi titled Sanjay Singh Versus Dabloo Bhagat bearing Revision Petition No. 2840 of 2016 decided on 11.5.2018 vide which the Hon'ble Commission held that “The complainant failed to place on record any technical/expert report to support his allegation that the tractor in question was defective.”

Both these citations are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present complaint as in the present case also the complainant has not filed any expert report so failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the mobile set. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

15. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the  present complaint and same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        5th Day of July 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member