DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.513 of 10-10-2012
Decided on 08-01-2013
Harcharan Singh s/o Gurdev Singh r/o Vill. Pakka Kalan, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo & Distt. Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044; through its CEO.
2.Pappu Enterprises, 21 PRTC Market, Near Bus Stand, Bathinda; through its proprietor.
3.Shri Ram Tele Services, (Authorized Samsung Service Centre), SCF 62, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda; through its proprietor.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Sukhpal Singh Gill, counsel for complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Kuljit Pal Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 ex-parte.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased one mobile handset make Samsung 8600 Wave 3 bearing IMEI No.359516043868514 and paid Rs.17,000/- vide bill No.0626 dated 31.7.2012 from the opposite party No.2, manufactured by the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.3 is the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1. At the time of the purchase of the abovementioned mobile handset the opposite party No.2 had assured the complainant that the same is one of the best handset of Samsung and is free from all types of defects and further assured that in case of any defects occurs in the said handset, it shall be removed within no time by them. The opposite party No.2 had given the warranty of one year on the said mobile handset. On 24.9.2012 the said handset went out of order as the same was not charging when put on the charge and it hanged and print on the screen went missing. The complainant alongwith his son approached the opposite party No.2 and informed them about the problem and they asked him to approach the opposite party No.3 being the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1. The said mobile handset was retained by the opposite party No.3 vide service request dated 24.9.2012 and they asked the complainant and his son to visit them next day. On the next day, the officials of the opposite party No.3 informed the complainant that he will have to pay Rs.4672/- on account of the repair charges of the said handset. The complainant requested the opposite party No.3 to repair the said handset free of cost as the same is well within the warranty period but they refused to entertain his complaint. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties either to replace the said handset with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.17,000/- or any additional relief for which he may be found entitled alongwith cost and compensation.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and pleaded that 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 the expert and qualified person of the central Approved Laboratories. The opposite party No.2 has not given the warranty of one year on the said handset. The warranty if any, can only be given by the manufacturer of the said handset. The opposite party No.1 is still ready to render after sale service and to remove the defect/problem if any in the said mobile handset. The opposite party No.1 has denied all the allegations levelled by the complainant in para No.5 of its reply on merits.
3. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 despite service of summons have failed to appear before this Forum. Hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party Nos.2 and 3.
4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. The contention of the complainant is that he has purchased one mobile handset make Samsung 8600 Wave 3 bearing IMEI No.359516043868514 and paid Rs.17,000/- vide bill No.0626 dated 31.7.2012 and one year warranty was given by the opposite party No.2 on behalf of the manufacturer. The said mobile handset started giving problem on 24.9.2012 as it went out of order and was not charging when put on the charge and it hanged and print on the screen went missing. The complainant alongwith his son approached the opposite party No.2 and informed them about the problem and they asked him to approach the opposite party No.3 being authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1. The said mobile handset was retained by the opposite party No.3 vide service request dated 24.9.2012 and they asked the complainant and his son to visit them next day. On approaching the next day, the officials of the opposite party No.3 informed the complainant that he will have to pay Rs.4672/- on account of the repair charges. The complainant requested the opposite party No.3 to repair the said handset free of cost as the same is well within the warranty period so he is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.4672/- but they refused to accede to his requests.
7. The opposite party No.1 submitted that the warranty of one year has not been given by the opposite party No.2 on the said handset rather the same can only be given by the manufacturer. 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 the expert or qualified person of the central Approved Laboratories in support of his allegations. Moreover the opposite party No.1 denied that the said mobile handset went out of order on 24.9.2012 and was not charging when put on the charge and it hanged and print on the screen went missing or the complainant alongwith his son has ever approached the opposite party No.2 and informed them about the problem or on the same day he approached the opposite party No.3 who retained the said handset and asked them to visit them next day and on the next day their officials informed him that he will have to pay Rs.4672/-.
8. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have not appeared before this Forum. Hence the opposite party No.2 and 3 have admitted the fact that the said mobile handset is sold by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant and the same was taken to the opposite party No.3 for its repair.
9. The complainant has placed on file Ex.C2 Samsung Service Request dated 24.9.2012 which is duly signed by the official of Samsung Customer Service. In this defect description is given 'Not Charging, Hang; Accessory:-With Battery and Back Cover; Remark:-Print Missing, Total EST/Rs.4672/-'. The complainant had purchased the said mobile handset vide Ex.C2 on dated 31.7.2012 and the defect occurred in the same approximately within 2 months of its purchase. A perusal of the bill No.0626 dated 31.7.2012 Ex.C3 shows that it has been specifically mentioned that the 'Handset Warranty One Year by Company Accessory Warranty Six Months by Company'. As per the warranty provided by the company/manufacturer itself the said mobile handset is within the warranty and during the warranty period the opposite party No.3 is not liable to charge any amount for any defect in the said mobile handset.
10. From the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file it has been proved that the said mobile handset became defective approximately within the warranty period and the opposite party No.3 has demanded Rs.4672/- for its repairs that amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 3.
11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are directed to repair the said mobile handset free of cost to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and at the same time, the complainant will sign the satisfaction note before taking the delivery of the said mobile handset. The compliance of this order be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
08-01-2013
Vikramjit Kaur Soni
President
Amarjeet Paul
Member
Sukhwinder Kaur
Member
