Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 307
Instituted on : 26.06.2019
Decided on : 04.09.2023
Anant s/o Late sh. Brij Mohan Singla R/o Anant Mega Mart, Railway Road, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th Floor, Two horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon,Haryana-122202.
- Gobind Ram, Enterprises, Gohana Adda, Rohtak 124001.
- B2X, Amit Pahwa, B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Opp. Old Zym Khana Club(City Mall), Jain Mansion HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 & 3 exparte.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased a mobile set of Samsung A7 from the opposite party no.2 for a sum of Rs.28000/- . On 24.03.2019 the alleged mobile got hanged so he deposited the mobile with the opposite party no.3 on dated 25.03.2019. Opposite party No.3 charged Rs.3983/-from the complainant. But thereafter there is repeated defects in the mobile in question. Complainant requested the opposite party no.2 to repair the mobile in front of him but they refused for the same and the complainant deposited the mobile with them. Thereafter complainant opposite party told the complainant telephonically that there was liquid in the mobile and there will be expense of Rs.1000/- for repair the same. They returned the mobile set to the complainant. Due to alleged act of the opposite parties, complainant suffered a loss of Rs.56000/- beside the mental agony and financial loss. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set as well as Rs.87000/- on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No. 2 & 3 received back duly served through process server of this Commission. But none has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 & 3. As such opposite party No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.08.2019 of this Commission.
3. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the answering opposite party provided one year standard warranty period for his unit and also the sad standard warranty is subject to some conditions and one of the condition is that if the unit got damaged due to liquid logging/ i.e. contact with water of anytype of liquid, the warranty becomes void. The complainant for the first time, in regards to complaint regarding the unit in question, approached to the answering opposite party vide call no.4279623649 on 25.03.2019 and reported ‘Display broken problem’ in his unit. The engineer of the company checked the unit and found that the screen of the unit was damaged. The engineer told that the unit is our to warranty due to physically damage condition and the repair will be on chargeable basis. The complainant agreed the same and paid the repair charges and collected the phone. Thereafter complainant did not reported any issue with the answering opposite party till 25.06.2019. On 25.06.2019 the unit of complainant was presented for some issue of ‘battery backup low’. Again the unit was checked by the service centre and found that the unit was damaged due to liquid logging. Complainant was told that the warranty of the unit has got barred due to water logging and the repair of unit shall be on chargeable basis but the complainant refused for the same and the unit was returned without repair. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 29.11.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party no.1 has tendered affidavit ExRW1/A, Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 and closed his evidence 9on 07.01.2021. Complainant has further submitted that the opposite party has made the payment in May 2023 and prayed for granting compensation and harassment.
5. We have heard the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present complaint, complainant had purchased the mobile set on 13.12.2018 for a sum of Rs.28000/- having warranty of one year. The complainant has came with the complaint that the mobile suddenly got hanged on 24.03.2019 and he deposited the handset on 25.03.2019 with the customer care services. The customer care centre charged Rs.3983/- from the complainant to repair the mobile. To prove the same complainant has placed on record document Ex.C3. The said amount has been charged for the display broken. Opposite party has also placed on record document Ex.R2 to prove the same. Thereafter the complainant came with another complaint with service centre on 25.06.2019 and he deposited the handset with customer care centre. As per Ex.R3 placed on record by the respondent, after examination by the customer care centre, liquid damage has been found in the mobile set. To prove the same, photograph Ex.R4 has also been placed on record by the opposite party. As per version of the respondent the said damage is not covered under the warranty.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and present complaint stands dismissed accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.09.2023
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
