BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.126 of 2015

Date of Instt. 26.03.2015

Date of Decision :01.07.2015

Bharpreet Singh @ Honey Singh aged about 33 years son of Balbir Singh R/o 139, GTB Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd, Head Office, 35 HUDA Main Market, Sector 31, Gurgaon, 122001, Haryana through its Manager/Authorized Person.

2. Samsung Service Centre, C/o New Rays Enterprises, SCO-11, Khukhrana Complex, Near Football Chowk, Jalandhar.

3. Mobile House through its authorized representative Regd.Office Phagwara gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Opposite party No.3 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a mobile handset of Samsung company model SM/N9000ZKEINS, having IMEI No.351540060222791 vide bill No.68866 dated 26.3.2014 for Rs.46,500/- with one year warranty. The opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of Sasumg mobile having trade mark Samsung carrying on business throughout India including Jalandhar, opposite party No.2 is approved and authorized service centre under the care and supervision and the administrative control of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 is the retailer of opposite party No.1. There was problem in the handset and the complainant gave his handset to the opposite party No.2 for its repairs on 28.1.2015 and the opposite party No.2 issued a job sheet No.4188778220 to the complainant and received the handset for repairs and the opposite party No.2 delivered the handset to the complainant on next day with the assurance that the set is now fully repaired and there is no fault in the handset. Thereafter again after about three months, the problem of charging, network and hanging problem again occurred in the mobile set of the complainant and complainant again contacted the opposite party No.2 for the repair on 9.3.2015 and they again issued the job sheet No.4190691340 and repaired the handset and delivered the handset to the complainant on the next day and stated that mother board/PBC board of the handset has been changed. The complainant was surprised and shocked that even after the changing of the mother board/PBC board the problem was still in the handset of the complainant and the opposite parties have harassed the complainant while stating the wrong facts that the set has been repaired properly. The complainant was again shocked and surprised that the same problem again occurred in the handset on very next date and when the complainant approached the opposite party No.2, then the opposite party No.2 refused to receive the handset for repair and even failed to listen the genuine request of the complainant and even threatened the complainant to do whatever he can do. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their joint written reply, inter-alia, pleading that there is no deficiency of service or breach of contract on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 have never denied after sales services and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant, if required. As mentioned in the complaint, handset in question was submitted with opposite party No.2 on 28.1.2015 after 10 months of purchasing the handset, with problem of network and charging. On inspection of handset by opposite party no.2 it was found that problem was due to corruption of software. Hence software was updated and problem of network and charging was duly rectified and handset was delivered back to complainant in OK condition to his satisfaction. Thereafter complainant has visited opposite party No.2 on 9.3.2015 and the problem reported in the handset was network and charging, said problem was duly rectified by replacing the PBA board of the handset without any charges and to the satisfaction of complainant. Thereafter complainant has not visited opposite party No.2 with any kind of problem in his handset. Thus there is no defect in the handset of the complainant now and if complainant does not agree with the contentions of answering opposite parties then opposite parties through this reply request the Forum to direct the complainant to submit his handset with the authorized service centre for inspection and expert opinion regarding the exact condition of the handset as required under the law. The obligation of the answering opposite parties under warranty is to set right the mobile handset by repairing or replacing the defective parts only subject to warranty terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty card supplied with every product. The performance of the mobile handset depends upon the physical handling of the product, apart from installation and downloading of various mobile applications, games and other software. The handset was brought to opposite party No.2 on 28.1.2015 and 9.3.2015 and on both occasions the problem reported was duly rectified to the satisfaction of complainant and without any charges. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irrepairable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central approved laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. In the absence of any expert evidence the claim can not be allowed. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party No.3 did not appear inspite of notice, as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A alongwith copy of document Ex.OP1 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2.

7. It is not disputed that complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.3 vide retail invoice dated 26.3.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.43,500/-. According to the complainant after purchase and during warranty period defect arose in the mobile handset and he deposited the handset with service centre i.e opposite party No.2 vide job sheet dated 28.1.2015 and after repair the complainant received the handset with the assurance that set has been fully repaired and now there is no fault in it. Further according to the complainant, after about three months the problem of charging, network and hanging again occurred in the mobile handset and he again deposited the handset for repair with opposite party No.2 on 9.3.2015 and opposite party No.2 repaired the handset by changing mother board and delivered back the same to him with the assurance that the handset has been repaired properly and there is no defect in it. Further according to the complainant, he was shocked to see that the same problem occurred again in the handset on very next day and when he approached opposite party No.2, it refused to receive the handset for repair. On the other hand, according to opposite parties No.1 and 2, the handset was brought to opposite party No.2 on 28.1.2015 and 9.3.2015 and on both occasions the problem reported was duly rectified to the satisfaction of complainant and without any charges and thereafter the complainant never approached opposite party No.2. Further according to opposite parties No.1& 2, they have never denied after sales service and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant, if required, according to the terms and conditions of the warranty. Further according to the opposite parties No.1 and 2, as per warranty terms and condition, the liability of the opposite parties is to repair the handset or to replace the defective part, if any. Further according to the opposite parties No.1 and 2, there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset of the complainant nor complainant has examined any expert witness to prove the same. We have carefully considered the contentions and version of both the parties. The complainant has produced one job sheet/service request dated 28.1.2015 Ex.C2. The handset was purchased by the complainant on 26.3.2014. So it means that the mobile handset of the complainant worked properly for about 10 months. In case, there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset of the complainant then it would have not functioned without any defect for about 10 months. After 28.1.2015, the complainant again approached opposite parties No.1 and 2 on 9.3.2015 and this time also handset was repaired and even mother board was replaced and complainant received back the mobile handset from opposite party No.2. It is not shown or proved, if the complainant ever deposited the mobile handset with opposite party No.2 thereafter. The oral version of the complainant that opposite party No.2 refused to receive the handset for repair and even threatened him can not be accepted. Under the terms and conditions of the warranty, the liability of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 is to repair the handset or to replace the defective part, if any and in the present case on both the occasions, the opposite party No.2 duly repaired the handset of the complainant. It is in the affidavit Ex.OPW1/A of Shriniwas Joshi, Senior Manager of opposite parties No.1 and 2 that they or its service centre has never denied after sales services and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant, if required. In the above circumstances, no case for refund of price or even replacement of the mobile handset is made out.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to rectify the defect in the mobile handset of the complainant, if any free of cost. The complainant is directed to deposit his handset with the service centre of opposite party No.2 for this purpose within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, the complainant is awarded Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

01.07.2015 Member Member President