Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/53

Anshu Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Gupta

18 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 53 of   21.01.2015

   Date of Decision            :   18.08.2015

 

Anshu Gupta Advocate, aged 32 years, Chamber No.1024, 1^st Floor New Judicial Courts Complex, Ludhiana r/o H.No.141, Street No.3, Bawa Colony, Baloke Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. B-1 Sector 81, Phase-2 Noida District Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh through authorized signatory.

2.Samsung Customer Satisfaction, 2^nd Floor Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43 Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 through authorized signatory.

3.Samsung Service Centre, College Road, Nr.Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana through authorized signatory.

4.M/s Khanuja Enterprises, 9119, Joshi Nagar Haibowal Kalan Ludhiana through authorized signatory.

…Opposite parties

 

                             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

MS.BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         In person

For OP1 & OP2             :         Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate

For OP3 & OP4             :         Ex-parte

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Sh.Anshu Gupta filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs, by alleging that he purchased a new mobile Samsung Galaxy Star Pro with EMI No.354324/06/338012/1 from OP4 for consideration of Rs.6000/- vide bill No.17176 dated 16.07.2014. Warranty of one year from the date of purchase was provided, but various types of defects emerged in the mobile handset. OP4 was contacted numerous times, but he refused to help the complainant just by suggesting that he should visit the office of OP3 for any type of complaints. In response to that suggestion, complainant visited office of OP3 on 22.11.2014. Token No.P141122048/22112014/13:56:47 with the No P48 was issued regarding the complaint of mobile touch not working and same is running automatically. OP3 after getting the mobile handset from the complainant, called upon him to wait for sometime. After sometime, complainant was disclosed by OP3 that the said mobile handset is not covered by the warranty. Complainant was asked to pay Rs.5500/- for repair of the mobile handset and same was returned to the complainant. OP3 refused to give the job sheet to the complainant at that time, qua which protest was lodged with OP3. Required services not provided by OP3. OP1 and OP2, being manufacturers are responsible alongwith remaining Ops for deficiency in services. Complainant claims to have suffered mental, physical and financial loss because he has to spent Rs.6000/- for purchase of another mobile of renowned company. Notice dated 17.12.2014 was sent through registered post for complaining of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Despite that mobile handset has not been replaced and nor any reply to the notice sent by the Ops. Compensation in the shape of penalty of Rs.50,000/- alongwith Rs.6000/- on account of mental, physical and financial sufferance also claimed.

2.                          OP1 and OP2 filed joint written statement by claiming that complaint has been filed for abusing the process of law because the same is based on false, frivolous and baseless allegations. There is no deficiency of service or breach of contract on the part of Ops. Ops or its service centre has never denied to provide services, rather they are still ready to provide service to the complainant, if required. It is claimed that complainant after alleged purchase of the mobile handset on 16.07.2014, has not visited any authorized service centre for mentioning about the concerned problem, which suggest as if the mobile handset working properly and without any defect. It is claimed that the complainant may be directed to submit his mobile handset with the authorized service centre for inspection and expert opinion qua the exact condition of the mobile handset. The alleged problem of ‘touch not working’ may be due to physical mishandling  of the mobile handset or the mobile handset might have fallen down during use by the complainant. No irreparable manufacturing defect pointed out. In the absence of technical expert report qua the condition of the mobile handset, the complainant cannot be compensated. No cause of action accrued to the complainant because there is no deficiency of service. Admittedly, there was warranty of one year on the purchased mobile handset. Each and every other allegation of the complaint denied.

3.                OP3 and OP4 are ex-parte in this case.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents EX.C1 to Ex.C8 and then closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 and OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Shriniwas Joshi, Senior Manager of Samsung India Electronics Private Limited and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments addressed and were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

7.                There is no dispute regarding the purchase of the mobile handset in question by the complainant because allegations in that respect specifically not denied. Besides retail invoice of the purchased mobile handset Ex.C1 has been produced to show as if the same was purchased by the complainant on 16.7.2014.

8.                The bone of contention remains as to whether the complainant visited the service centre of OPs i.e. office of OP3 on 22.11.2014 or not? Ex.C2 is the copy of Token issued by the service centre of Samsung. Though it is contended that Ex.C2 is not the token issued by any authorized service centre of Samsung, but despites availability of the bar code and token number on Ex.C2, verification of the same not got done by the Ops. So, contents of affidavit Ex.CA of complainant has to be accepted as correct that he visited office of OP3 on 22.11.2014 and obtained token, the copy of which is Ex.C2. Realizing this position, OP1 and OP2 may have offered to repair the mobile handset of the complainant after conducting inspection thereof. As offer for repair of the mobile handset has been made by the Ops themselves through their written reply as well as affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Shriniwas Joshi, Senior Manager of Samsung India Electronics Private Limited and as such, in a way the claim of the complainant for repair of the mobile handset has been accepted. Denial of issue of token number Ex.C2 by the authorized service centre of Samsung itself shows that complainant has been dragged in unnecessary litigation and as such, ends of justice warrants that composite amount of Rs.2500/- consisting of compensation and litigation costs should be allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP1 to OP3.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint allowed in terms that OP3 will repair the mobile handset of the complainant free of costs. Composite amount of Rs.2500/- consisting of compensation and litigation costs also allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP1 to OP3. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, which be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Babita)                                  (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                   Member                                       President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:18.08.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.