DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.331 of 22-07-2010 Decided on 14-01-2011
Gurjeet Singh Khadial (Advocate) S/o Sh. Gurbakash Singh Khadial, resident of Shant Nagar, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 7th & 8th Floor, IFCI Tower 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110019, through its Managing Director. M/s J.D.Enterprises, Post Office Bazaar, Opp. City Post Office, Bathinda. Samsung Service Centre, Krishna Market, backside Hotel Krishna Continental, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda, through its Manager.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Sanjeev Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Sukhraj Singh, counsel for opposite party No.2. Opposite party Nos.1&3 exparte.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased Samsung GT-S 3310 mobile set from M/s J.D. Enterprises, Post office Bazaar, opp. City Post office, Bathinda vide Invoice No.3841 on 07.10.2009 after paying the amount of Rs.4,600/- with one year warranty against any technical and manufacturing defect and further, if, there would occur any defect within the warranty period that can be repaired free of cost from any authorized Samsung Care Centre. The warranty period for the mobile set in question was 07.10.2009 till 07.10.2010. The complainant deposited the mobile set in question at their Samsung service care centre, near Krishna Continental. The same was accepted there with the remarks that Repeated out going sound problem and handed over the same to the complainant after repairing but the same problem occurred after 2-3 days and the complainant again visited their to get it repair. The representative person sitting there at Samsung service care centre, told the complainant that it is not changeable as there is no manufacturing defect in it. The complainant told the opposite parties that the defect has been repeated time and again and it should be repaired free of cost as there is manufacturing defect but the opposite parties refused to accept the mobile handset in question without charges despite the fact that it was in the warranty period. The opposite party No.3 is an authorized service centre and as per the company's policy, the opposite party No.3 is bound to get repair the mobile set in question free of cost as it was within the warranty period and the problem was occurred in the mobile set and the same was due to manufacturing defect. The refusal on the part of the opposite party No.3 to repair it without charges, amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.3 for which, the opposite party Nos.1&2 are also responsible because the opposite party No.3 is providing services on behalf of opposite party Nos.1&2. The complainant is a practicing lawyer at Distt. Courts, Bathinda and he has been using the said mobile set for his professional work. Due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental and physical harassment. 2. There are three opposite parties but only the opposite party No.2 has filed its written statement. The opposite party Nos.1&3 have proceeded against exparte. The opposite party No.2 has submitted in its written statement that the manufacturing company gives the warranty of its products. The opposite party No.2 who is dealer, does not give warranty on the products, manufactured by the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 has also assured the complainant at the time of purchase of the mobile set that the warranty would be given by the company and the same condition has been mentioned in the bill that the warranty by the company only and admitting this fact complainant purchased the said mobile set from the opposite party No.2. The complainant had never approached the opposite party No.2. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the complainant and opposite party No.2 perused. 5. The opposite party No.3 which is an authorized service centre and the opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer have not appeared before this Forum despite receiving the summon. Hence, the exparte proceedings are taken against the opposite party Nos.1&3. 6. The complainant had purchased Samsung GT-S 3310 mobile set from the opposite party No.2 vide Invoice No.3841 on 07.10.2009 after paying the amount of Rs.4,600/- and one year warranty from 07.10.2009 till 07.10.2010 was given to the complainant against any technical and manufacturing defect and further, if, there would occur any defect in the mobile set, that defect would be get repaired free of cost. The complainant had some problems in the mobile set in question and approached the opposite party No.3 i.e. an authorized service care centre and has deposited the mobile set in question for repair and they have endorsed the remarks that 'Repeated out going sound problem' and after repairing the mobile set in question, the same was handed over to the complainant but the same problem occurred again after 2-3 days. When the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 then its representative, refused to rectify the defect and told the complainant that the amount would be charged on account of the repairing even if the mobile set is in warranty period. 7. A perusal of Ex.C-3 which is the job sheet, issued by the opposite party No.3 shows that there is repeated out going sound problem in the mobile set in question. The said mobile set has been received by the complainant after repair. After some days, there occurred the same problem but the representative of the opposite party No.3 refused to rectify the defect and asked the complainant that the amount will be charged on account of repairing the mobile set, even if, the mobile set is in warranty period. The first repair was got done by the complainant on 08.07.2010 and the date of purchase of the mobile set is 07.10.2009 and one year warranty had been given on this mobile set. The complainant has also filed this complaint within the warranty period of the mobile set in question i.e. on 22.07.2010. Hence, if there is any problem, the opposite parties are duty bound to repair the mobile set in question free of cost as it is within the warranty period. The refusal on the part of the opposite party No.3 and demand of repairing charges, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3. 8. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3. Hence, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party No.3 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos.1&2. The complainant is directed to take his mobile handset in question to the opposite party No.3 within 10 days from date of receipt of copy of this order and the opposite party No.3 is directed to repair the mobile set in question free of cost. Compliance of this order be made within 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 14.01.2011 President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
