Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/39/2017

Deepak Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In person

07 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :    39 of 2017

Date of Institution                             :    17.08.2017

Date of Decision:                    :    07.05.2018

Deepak Bhardwaj son of Shri Krishan Gopal Resident of Mohalla Inderpuri, Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Mobile No.9653162072.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre Golf Course Road, Sector – 43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122202, Phone +91-124-4881234.
2. Samsung Service, Authorized Service Centre, Heeran Jattan Mohalla, Nawanshahr, District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, Tel.01823-225850.
3. Gaba Telecom, Market Gurdwara Singh Sabha, Chandigarh Road Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar, Tel. 98552-81235, Cell: 98157-45430

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.A.P.S. RAJPURT, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

For complainant                      :         Sh.Vikram Sharma, Advocate

For OP No.1&2                       :         Sh.B.P.S. Panesar, Advocate

For OP No.3.                           :         Ex parte.

 

ORDER

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

       Complainant filed present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by alleging that complainant purchased a Samsung mobile Model J-7 vide bill No.1498, dated 09.09.2016 for Rs.14,250/- from OP No.3 and warranty till 08.09.2017 – one year has also given. On 05.07.2017, due to screen off, his mobile was become faulty and next day i.e. 06.07.2017, he submitted the mobile with OP-2 for its repair. After expiry of five days, the service Centre has returned the mobile set after its repair.  Then, after lapse of 10 days, the said mobile was again faulty due to same problem of screen off.  He again approached to Service Centre, who demanded Rs.4400/- for its repair as his mobile suffering from internal crack, on which complainant has told that said mobile is within warranty and why he pay the amount for repair, then service centre refused to repair the mobile.

       The complainant has purchased mobile set for Rs.14250/-, which is priceless.  Ops have not repaired the mobile, rather the Ops have demanded more amount.  He is unable to pay more money.  Lastly it is claimed that old mobile be replaced with new mobile or in alternative, refund the price of mobile i.e. Rs.14250/- and also claimed for compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

2.       Upon notice, OP No.3 has failed to appeared and ultimately proceeded against ex parte.  OP No.2&3 has filed joint written version stating therein that the handset of complainant seems to be perfectly working as it has never been submitted with OP-2 with any kind of problem till date.  The answering OP has checked its record and record of OP-2 and no repair history has been found about the handset and there is no defect in the handset.  Now complainant has filed the present complaint alleging totally false facts and is trying to take benefit of his own wrong by concealing the true fact regarding physical damaged/broken condition of handset.  Complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties.  Answering OP has unnecessarily impleaded as party. There is no inherent defect in the handset.  The answering OP has already filed an application for permission to inspect the handset by its service engineer to access the present exact position of the handset, whether there is any physical damage caused to the handset or not, whether there is any breach of warranty condition, as physical damage/broken is a warranty void condition.  No cause of action arisen to complainant against answering OPs.  The answering OP or its service centre has never denied after sales services and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant subject warranty terms and conditions.  The performance of mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product.  The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of independent expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law.  The complainant claims that the mobile to be suffering from defects, therefore, it is the legal duty, under the discharge of burden, upon the complainant to establish the same by technical expert report but no such report adduced by complainant till date before this Forum, hence in absence of any such technical expert report the complaint of complainant cannot be decided as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The answering OP is a renowned company in electronic products and home appliances and is manufacturing electronic products for the past several years.  The technology used by company in manufacturing the world class electronics products is highly sophisticated.  On merits, each and every averments made by complainant are categorically denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.       On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence self declaration Ex.CW/A, his affidavit Ex.CW1, affidavit of Sh.Chander Gupt Ex.CW2, affidavit of Sh.Rakesh Bharadwaj Ex.CW3, bill dated 09.09.2016 of Gaba Telecom Ex.CW4, warranty period by product Ex.CW5 and closed the evidence. Learned counsel for OPs No.1&2 has tendered affidavit of Sandeep Sahijwani Ex.OP1/A alongwith photocopies of documents Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and OP No.1&2 and have also gone through the record carefully.

6.    Learned counsel for complainant has argued that complainant purchased a Samsung mobile Model J-7 vide bill No.1498, dated 09.09.2016 for Rs.14,250/- from OP No.3 and warranty till 08.09.2017 – one year has also given. On 05.07.2017, due to screen off, his mobile was become faulty and next day i.e. 06.07.2017, he submitted the mobile with OP-2 for its repair. After expiry of five days, the service Centre has returned the mobile set after its repair.  Then, after lapse of 10 days, the said mobile was again faulty due to same problem of screen off.  He again approached to Service Centre, who demanded Rs.4400/- for its repair as his mobile suffering from internal crack, on which complainant has told that said mobile is within warranty and why he pay the amount for repair, then service centre refused to repair the mobile. The complainant has purchased mobile set for Rs.14250/-, which is priceless.  Ops have not repaired the mobile, rather the Ops have demanded more amount and prayed for relief claimed.

7.    On the other hand, counsel for OP No.2&3 has argued that the handset of complainant never been submitted with OP-2 with any kind of problem till date.  The answering OP-2 has checked its record and record of OP-3 and no repair history has been found about the handset and there is no defect in the handset.  OP-2 has already filed an application for permission to inspect the handset by its service engineer to access the present exact position of the handset, whether there is any physical damage caused to the handset or not, whether there is any breach of warranty condition, as physical damage/broken is a warranty void condition.  Complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of independent expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.    Counsel for complainant argued that complainant approached to OP-2 for two times as revealed from contents of complaint.  He also argued that the cause of action arisen when the mobile caused to create problem, this problem was arisen under warranty period.  Ex.C-4 also provide one year warranty.  He prayed for relief claim. 

9.    Counsel for OP No.1&2 has argued that the complainant neither has alleged and manufacturing defect in the mobile in question nor filed any documentary evidence.  In absence of any expert evidence complaint could not be allowed.  Counsel for complainant has strongly argued that mobile in question suffering from defects.  On the other hand counsel for OP No.1&2 argued it is the duty of complainant to prove his case by submitting any technical expert opinion/report.  But no such report produced on record by complainant.  This complaint is premature moreover complainant used the mobile set for 10 months from the date of purchase. He placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Sandeep Bhalla Vs Ashoka Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (2011) CPJ 138 (NC) that if a product is used for a period of 7-8 months without any interruption then it cannot be assumed that the product has any defect.    

10.  The contention of complainant is not proved.  Moreover, the mobile was started giving problem after its use of about 10 months from the date of purchased.  This is mishandling of the mobile in question on the part of complainant.  Complainant has argued that complainant alongwith his friend and his relative visit with the service centre – OP-2 for rectification of defect in the mobile set in question. This contention is not proved through Ex.CW2 and Ex.CW3. No manufacturing defects in the mobile set is proved on record by complainant.

10.     Resultantly, this complaint is disposed of with directions to OP No.1&2 to replace the defective part of the mobile in question free of cost and make the said mobile set defect free to the satisfaction of complainant, if the mobile set was within warranty period at time of accrual of cause of action, otherwise, the OP No.1&2 are at liberty charged the actually part charges as per terms and conditions.            

11.     Entire compliance be made by the OP No.1&2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

12.     Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated:  07.05.2018

 

  

(Kanwaljeet Singh)       (A.P.S. Rajput)

Member                         President