THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2015
Date of Institution : 8.1.2015
Date of Decision : 01.07.2015
Mrs. Simranpreet Kaur w/o Sh. Harsangeet Singh R/o B-33, GF Ranjit Avenue,Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Samsung India Elecronics Pvt. Ltd. B-1, Sector 81, Phase 2, Noida, U.P. Through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer
S.M.Communication at SCO 31, First Floor, Nehru Complex, Lawrence Road, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner
Punjab Time Centre, Hall Bazar, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner/Principal Officer
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Samardeep Singh,Advocate
For the opposite party No.1 : Ms. Preeti Mahajan,Advocate
For opposite party No.2 : Sh.Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For opposite party No.3 : Ex-parte
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
-2-
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Simranpreet Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she purchased one Tablet Samsung from opposite party No.3 vide invoice dated 1.1.2014 for a sum of Rs. 17000/- with one year warranty. Complainant has alleged that the said Tablet set from the very beginning is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant lodged several complaints with opposite party No.2, who get it rectified several times. According to the complainant on 30.12.2014 the said Tablet totally stopped working. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 . But this time opposite party refused to provide the warranty service rather returned the tablet to the complainant by stating that the set is out of warranty. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to replace the Tablet with new one of the same make and model or to refund the price of the Tab i.e. Rs. 17000/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant purchased second hand Tablet set as this hand set was first purchased and used by one Dr. Sahil Bhatia on 22.11.2013. The bill
-3-
dated 1.1.2014 issued by opposite party No.3 to the complainant for the handset Tab is of second sale of the said product. It was submitted that the service centre duly repaired the product free of cost as and when complainant approached opposite party No.2 before 22.11.2013. Lastly complainant visited opposite party No.2 on 31.12.2014 for service of handset Tab with problem of battery back up as on 31.12.2014 the product in question was out of warranty, therefore, service and repair was on chargeable basis. The condition of the handset was very bad, colour of the body was lost and there were lot of scratches which shows that handset has been badly mishandled. It was submitted that the problem of hanging and slow charging is a minor problem and the same was duly rectified and handset was made OK But the complainant has filed the present complaint. It was submitted that complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect in the product. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.2 did not file written version and made statement adopting the written version filed by opposite party No.1.
4. Opposite party No.3 did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.2.2015.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of job sheet Ex.C-3.
-4-
6. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Shriniwas Joshi,Sr. Manager Ex.R-1, warranty card Ex.R-2.
7. Opposite party No.2 made statement on 10.6.2015 adopting the evidence tendered by opposite party No.1.
8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
9. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant purchased one Tablet Samsung from opposite party No.3 vide invoice dated 1.1.2014 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 17000/-. The complainant alleges that the said Tablet became defective . The complainant lodged several complaints with opposite party No.2, who got it rectified several times. But finally on 30.12.2014 the said Tablet totally stopped working. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 . But this time opposite party refused to provide the warranty service rather returned the tablet to the complainant by stating that the set is out of warranty. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
10. Whereas the case of opposite party No.1 is that the complainant purchased
-5-
second hand Tablet set. This hand set was first purchased and used by one Dr. Sahil Bhatia on 22.11.2013. The bill dated 1.1.2014 Ex.C-2 issued by the opposite party No.3 to complainant for the handset Tablet in question is of second hand sale of the said product. This fact regarding the date of first purchase of the set was duly mentioned in the job sheet Ex.C-3 issued by opposite party No.2 when the hand set was brought to opposite party No.2 for service and repair. Opposite party No.2 duly did service and repaired the product free of cost as and when the complainant approached opposite party No.2 before 22.11.2013 . Lastly complainant visited opposite party No.2 on 31.12.2014 for service of handset Tab with problem of battery back up . On 31.12.2014 the product in question was out of warranty, therefore service and repair was on chargeable basis. Opposite party has further alleged that the condition of the handset was very bad , colour of the body was lost and there were lot of scratches which show that hand set has been badly mishandled. Moreover, the alleged problem of hanging and slow charging is a minor problem which can be rectified. The complainant could not produce any evidence that the tablet hand set has inherent manufacturing defects or that the same is not repairable. Opposite party or its service centre has never denied after sale service . They are still ready to provide service to the complainant but on chargeable basis as the Tablet in question is out of warranty. Ld.counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the
-6-
part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 qua the complainant.
11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased the Tablet set of Samsung from opposite party No.3 for a sum of Rs. 17000/- vide invoice dated 1.1.2014 Ex.C-2. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 succeeded in proving that this Tablet was first sold to some Dr. Sahil on 22.11.2013 by opposite party No.3 and the second sale of this Tablet was made to complainant by opposite party No.3 on 1.1.2014 vide invoice Ex.C-2. The complainant has concealed this material fact from this Forum. The warranty of this Tablet was for one year i.e. from 22.11.2013 to 22.11.2014. The complainant produced his mobile set to opposite party No.2, the authorized service centre of Samsung on 31.12.2014 for repair and opposite party No.2 issued job sheet Ex.C-3 dated 31.12.2014 in which they have categorically mentioned that purchase date of this Tablet is 22.11.2013 , as such this Tablet on the date of this job sheet i.e. 31.12.2014 , was out of warranty. So opposite party No.2 was justified in telling the complainant that the Tablet is out of warranty and any repair/service towards that Tablet shall be on chargeable basis.
12. Consequently we hold that opposite parties No.1 & 2 were justified in not repairing the Tablet and replacement of the set as the same was out of warranty on 31.12.2014. Apart from this complainant has also failed to produce any evidence that the Tablet had any inherent manufacturing defect.
-7-
13. Resultantly we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
1.07.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
