Punjab

Hoshiarpur

CC/14/194

Alka - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Sunil Kumar

26 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOSHIARPUR

(3RD FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, HOSHIARPUR)

C.C.No. 194/8.9.2014

Decided on: 26.02.2015

Alka w/o.Sh.Ravinder Kumar Sharma, R/o.H.No.191/14/III, Anand Nagar, Ram garh, the & Distt. Hoshiarpur.

Complainant

vs.

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2^nd , 3^rd, 4^th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech, Square, Od, Gulf Road, Sector 43, Gurgaon, 122002.

2. Samsung mobile care centre, Krishna Nagar, Opp. Session Court, District Hoshiarpur.

3. Marwaha Telecom, Kotwali Bazar, District Hoshiarpur-146001.

Opposite parties

Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Naveen Puri, President

              Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary, Member

              Mrs. Sushma Handoo,Member

 

Present: Sh.Sunil Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

             Sh.S.K.Rayat, counsel for the OPs.

 

 

ORDER

PER SUSHMA HANDOO MEMBER

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as OP No.1, OP No.2 & OP No.3 respectively, for short) praying for a direction to the OPs to replace the handset in dispute with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.9,600/- alongwith compensation of Rs.20,000/- for inconvenience and harassment suffered by her and Rs.7,000/- as litigation costs.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she purchased Samsung Mobile handset Galaxy SDVOS 7562 from OP No.3 on 28.08.2013 for Rs.9,600/-. The handset is having warranty period of one year from the date of purchase. OP No.2 is authorized care centre of OP No.1. It is averred that the mobile handset in dispute started giving trouble in the month of June, 2014 and the defects used to occur in the handset i.e automatic shut down of the handset, the mobile used to be switched off automatically and the same used to be remained hang for so much time and the display of the handset also become non-working. Ultimately, complainant approached OP No.3 who told him to approach the care centre - OP No.2. Accordingly on 21.6.2014, the complainant approached OP No.2 and explained the defects in the handset. The mechanics of the OP No.2 kept the mobile and told the complainant to visit after a week . On 28.06.2014, the complainant and her son approached OP No.2 for collection of handset and the same was delivered by OP No.2 and it was told that the mother board of the handset was not working and the same has been replaced by them but no document or receipt etc. in this regard was shown to the complainant though the same was asked by her. Again on 17.8.2014, the handset in dispute started giving the same trouble. The complainant again approached OP No.2 who kept the same without giving any receipt but gave a complaint no.417 965 8019 and told that they would call him after mobile is repaired but on asking the complainant they refused to explain the defect in the handset. Thereafter, on 19.08.2014 the complainant was called telephonically by OP No.2. When the complainant and her son reached OP No.2 it was told that since the mother board of the handset is required to be replaced, hence the complainant should have to make the payment of Rs.4,800/- for the same. Complainant requested them that her handset is still in warranty period but they told that the mother board can be replaced once in a warranty period and the payment must be made now by her. Thereafter, complainant approached OP No.1 for her grievance but no response was given to her. Since, the defect in mother board of the mobile in dispute occurred during the warranty period which is the vital part of the set, hence it is obvious that the handset is having manufacturing defect and the same should have been replaced with new one by OP No.2 but by refusing the same they have committed deficiency in service. Complainant is a teacher and she had to visit the office of OPs No.2 & 3 number of times and she was harassed unnecessarily by OP No.2 for which the complainant is entitled to compensation. Hence this complaint.

3. On notice, OPs filed joint contested written statement taking routine preliminary objections including territorial jurisdiction. On merits, it is replied that complainant purchased mobile phone in question and warranty of one year was provided from the date of purchase subject to terms and conditions mentioned in warranty card. It is denied that mobile hand set started giving trouble in the month of June, 2014 and defects used to occur in the handset. It is also denied that handset started automatic shutdown, switch off automatically or used to remain hanged or display of the handset became non working. It is further denied that on 21.6.2014, complainant went to OP No.2 and explained the defects in the handset. It is also denied that mechanics of OP No.2 kept the handset and told the complainant to visit after a week for collection of handset. It is also denied that complainant was not told about the defect in the handset. It is further denied that on 28-06-2014 complainant and her son approached OP No.2 for collection of handset. It is further denied that mother board of the handset was not working or it was replaced as alleged. Rather, the handset was submitted with OP No.2 by the complainant on 5.6.2014 with the problem of wi-fi not connect, hang on processing. On inspection, it was found that non-compatible mobile applications were being used and very negligible memory of the handset was available free which was leading to hanging and other problems. However, immediately said applications were removed and unwanted data was also deleted to free the memory of the handset and updated software was reloaded and handset was delivered back in OK condition to the satisfaction of complainant. It is also denied that OP No.2 demanded Rs.4,800/- for replacing the motherboard. Rather, complainant approached OP No.2 on 18.8.2014 with problem of charging in her handset and complaint was registered vide No.4179658019 dated 18.8.2014 and the handset was inspected by OP No.2. On internal inspection of handset it was found that PBA board and LCD were water logged and damaged. The handset in question was not covered under warranty and repair was on chargeable basis. The estimate of repair was given to complainant but she did not approve it as such, handset was not repaired by OP No.2. It is denied that handset is having any manufacturing detect. The defects in handset have arisen due to physical mishandling of the handset and there is no inherent manufacturing defect in the handset. The complainant has badly mishandled the handset and has failed to prove on record that the handset in question cannot be repaired, thus she is not entitled for replacement or refund of price. The handset in question contained liquid when it was brought to OP No.2 for repairs on 18.8.2014. The handset in question was damaged due to liquid and not due to any manufacturing detect as alleged by her. Rather, complainant is trying to take benefit of her own wrong by filing the present complaint so, complaint filed by complainant is liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. C-1, supplementary affidavit Ex.C-2, Bill Ex.C-3, Warranty card Mark C-4 and closed the evidence.

5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Shriniwas Joshi Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

7. Learned counsel for the parties have argued on the lines of their pleadings.

8. We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record.

9. Counsel for the OPs has argued that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint . However, the bill dated 28.8.2013 Mark C-3 goes to show that complainant has purchased the mobile from Hoshiarpur. So , this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.

10. Admittedly, the mobile in question was purchased from OP No.3 vide bill dated 28.8.2013 Mark C-3 . The mobile set started giving trouble in June,2014 as it used to shut down , switched off automatically , remained hanged for long time and the display thereof also become non functional. The complainant approached OP No.3 who told him to approach the Care Centre - OP No.2. Accordingly, on 21.6.2014, complainant approached OP No.2 for repair of the mobile who kept the same and told her to visit after a week . On 28.06.2014, the complainant and her son approached OP No.2 for collection of handset and the same was delivered and it was told that the mother board of the handset was not working and the same had been replaced but no material in support of alleged change of motherboard was put forth to the complainant. Again on 17.8.2014, the handset in dispute started giving the same trouble. The complainant again approached OP No.2 who kept the same without giving any receipt but gave a complaint no.4179658019 and told her that they would call her after mobile is repaired but on asking by the complainant, they refused to explain the defect in the handset in dispute. Thereafter, on 19.08.2014 the complainant was called telephonically by OP No.2 and it was told that the mother board of the handset is required to be replaced and for that complainant has to pay Rs.4,800/- and further told that the mother board can be replaced once in a warranty period .

11. The OPs have further argued that on inspection by service engineer, it was found that PBA and LCD were water logged and damaged and as such it was not covered under warranty. No material in support of even such stand was brought or produced before the Forum. We fail to understand what difficulty was confronted by the OPs to place on record affidavit of inspecting service engineer to this effect or to produce the job sheet to support their stand. Though the defects in the mobile set came in the knowledge of OPs firstly, after about nine months of its purchase but even then it was within warranty of one year. Since, the defect in mother board of the mobile in dispute had occurred twice during the warranty period, manufacturing defect therein can well be presumed. In such a situation, the mobile set should have been replaced by the OPs of their own with a new one.

12. However, counsel for OPs has taken objection that complainant has neither alleged specific manufacturing defect nor proved it by any expert opinion. In ruling placed on record by the OPs reported as 2012 NCJ 917 (NC) Sukhwinder Singh vs. Classic Automobiles, Shastri Nagar, Gharkhand, the Hon'ble National Commission has held that to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle, report of expert is essential whereas in the present complaint defect is not with regard to the vehicle where the huge amount is involved. The facts and circumstances of the present case themselves prove that there is manufacturing and inherent defect in the mobile set as noted above .

13. Learned counsel for the OPs has argued that alleged problem of hanging and auto shutdown is due to mishandling of the mobile by the complainant but no evidence has been led by the OPs in this respect. In this way, deficiency in service of the part of the OPs is writ large in so far as the present case is concerned and the complainant is found entitled to the main relief alongwith appropriate compensation and litigation costs.

14. In view of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by complainant is partly accepted with a direction to the OPs to refund Rs.9,600/-, the cost of the mobile set to the complainant and to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation costs within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.11,600/- from the date of complaint i.e. 8.9.2014 till realization. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced.

26.02.2015

 

(Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary) (Mrs. Sushma Handoo) (Naveen Puri)

Member                            Member                        President

SS