Punjab

Sangrur

CC/296/2017

Deepak Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Gaganjot Singh

02 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  296

                                                Instituted on:    03.07.2017

                                                Decided on:       02.11.2017

 

 

 

Deepak Kumar son of Shri Prem Nath Nagpal, resident of Model Town, Abohar, District Sri Mukatsar Sahib.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, B-1, Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida, District Gautam Budha Naar (UP) through its Managing Director.

2.             M/s. Gaurav Communication, 1^st Floor, Inside Gaushalla Road, Near Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

3.             Narang Electricals, Opposite Babbu Meshi (Bara), Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its proprietor.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Gaganjot Singh, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OPs No.2&3       :               Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Deepak Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Samsung Mobile Galaxy G-7 for Rs.14,300/- vide invoice number 345 dated 01.07.2016 from OP number 3, which was having one year warranty/guarantee in all respects. It is further averred that the said mobile has been gifted by the complainant to his nephew Chirag Kumar son of Vikram Kumar, resident of Patiala Gate, Sangrur, who is studying in 10^th class and has been using the mobile set for download syllabus etc.  The grievance of the complainant is that on 22.5.2017, Vikram Kumar visited the OP number 2 for getting checked the mobile set in question as software of display was not working and the OP number 2 after checking the mobile set demanded Rs.400/- from the said Vikram Kumar, but he told the OP number 2 that the mobile set in question is under warranty/guarantee. Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the mobile set in question started giving more problems and during the using of the mobile set, the display of the mobile set has been out of screen and as such all this happened due to manufacturing defects in the mobile set as such, the OP number 2 was approached for getting repaired the mobile set in question, but the OP number 2 refused to repair the mobile set in question rather mishandled it and due to that many problems arose in the mobile set, but the problems in the mobile set were not set right by the OP number 2.  Thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice dated 15.6.2017 upon the OPs, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund to the complainant the purchase price of the mobile set and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 2 and 3 were proceeded exparte on 09.08.2017.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has filed the present complaint with mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich him at the cost of the OPs by filing frivolous complaint.  It is stated that there is a breach of warranty terms and conditions as the handset has been found “liquid damage’ due to which internal parts of the hand set have been damaged and hand set is not working and the repair was possible on charge basis, but the complainant refused to pay the charges, as such, the OPs  refused to repair the same.  It is stated that the complainant is not entitled to any relief from the OP as he has come to the Forum by concealing true and material facts.  It is stated further that the liquid damage mobile is not covered under any warranty.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.  On merits, the sale and purchase of the mobile set is admitted. However, it is denied that any Vikram Kumar visited the OP number 2 on 22.5.2017. It is stated that the mobile set in question has never been submitted with the OP number 2 prior to 10.6.2017 and when on 10.6.2017, the mobile set in question was submitted with the OP number 2 and OP number 2 checked the hand set and after inspection found its PBA board damaged due to liquid logging.  It has been admitted that the OP number 2 refused to replace the hand set due to warranty void condition arisen due to liquid logging of the hand set in question.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced  Ex.OP1/1 affidavit along with Annexure R-1 and R-2, Ex.OP1/2 affidavit of Jagseer Singh and Ex.OP1/3 expert report and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-3 is the copy of the invoice dated 1.07.2016 issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the Samsung  mobile set in question for Rs.14,300/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 3 and availed its services for the same.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question on 1.7.2016, but the complainant has averred in the complaint that the mobile set in question suffered the problem on 22.5.2017 at the first time, whereas the case of the OP number 1 is that the complainant visited OP number 2 on 10.6.2017 at the very first time with the problem in the mobile set and on checking of the same, OP number 2 found that the defect in the mobile set arose due to water logging problem, which is not covered under the warranty terms and conditions. It is further case of the OP number 1 that the mobile hand set in question has been physically mishandled as it was found liquid logged and damaged by the complainant when hand set was submitted before OP number 2 on 10.6.2017. It is further contended that on checking of the mobile set the OP number 2 found that its PBA board had damaged due to liquid logging and further to support this contention, the OP number 1 has produced the affidavit of the expert engineer Shri Jagseer Singh along with his expert report Ex.OP1/3, wherein the above said fact of liquid logged in the PBA of the mobile set and the hand set of the complainant is liquid damage has been clearly mentioned.  On the other hand, the complainant has produced nothing on record to rebut the above said report of Shri Jagseer Singh.  Moreover, it is worth mentioning here that earlier upto 10.6.2017, the working of the mobile set in question was satisfactory, but the problem arose only on 10.6.2017 due to water logging, which is not covered under the warranty terms and conditions, copy of which on record is Annexure R-2.  As such, we feel that the Ops have clearly proved on record that the mobile set in question does not contain any manufacturing defect and accordingly we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in complaint or any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as such, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However,  the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                November 2, 2017.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member

 

 

       

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                        Member