Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/358/2014

Jaspreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Satwinder Singh Saini

25 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/358/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	26/05/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	25/05/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Jaspreet Kaur W/o Sr. Satwinder Singh Saini, Resident of House No.2070, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, Gurgaon – 122002, through its MD/Head.

 

2.   Samsung India Electronics Limited, SCO 4-5, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160017, through its Branch Manager.

 

3.   Durga Communications, SCO 23, First Floor, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh – 160017, through its Branch Manager (Deleted vide order dated 30.09.2014).

 

4.   Anmol Watches and Electronics (P) Limited, SCO 1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh – 160017, through its Proprietor (Deleted vide order dated 30.09.2014).

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Satwinder Singh Saini, Advocate
For OP Nos.1 & 2	:	Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate
For OP Nos.3 & 4	:	Deleted

 

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased one Samsung Note II from M/s Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Ltd., vide Bill No. NCS-1843 (Annex.A) on 18.4.2013. It has been averred that in the month of January 2014, the aforesaid handset started giving problems by slowing down the processing and hanging up the mobile system. The Complainant accordingly reported the matter to the Authorized Service Centre of Samsung India Ltd. at Rajpura on 6.3.2014 (Annex.B), which returned the handset after carrying out necessary repairs and routine updation of the Softwares. It has been alleged that the Complainant noticed some liquid spots on the back panel of the handset. Upon enquiry, she was told by the Service Centre that it was due to repair and would disappear by time. It has been further alleged that despite aforesaid repair, again the handset developed similar problems and was deposited with the Authorized Service Centre at Chandigarh on 12.03.2014 (Annex.C). However, to the utter surprise of the Complainant, they had taken the handset as ‘out of warranty’, due to liquid spots on back panel and informed the Complainant that complete electric board was to be replaced for which she had to pay around Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Eventually, the Complainant served a legal notice dated 2.4.2014, calling upon the Opposite Parties to replace the handset in question, but to no avail. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their joint reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case have pleaded that till 6.3.2014 no such Complaint was made by the Complainant. The mobile set was brought for the purposes of repair and there was no such defect in the mobile set at the time when the same was returned to the Complainant. It has been pleaded that the mobile set was not brought to the Service Centre till 12.3.2014. During the said time, the mobile set was exposed to liquid which has damaged the motherboard. It has been admitted that the Complainant was informed that the mobile set is out of warranty on account of the same having been exposed to liquid and the repair was only possible on payment basis as the same was not covered within the warranty terms and conditions. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

 

4.     In view of the endorsement made by the Complainant, on the Complaint itself, the name of Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 were ordered to be deleted from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 30.09.2014.

 

5.     The complainant has filed a replication, wherein she has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

 

6.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides. 

 

8.     It is evident from the Bill (Annexure-A) dated 18.4.2013 that the Complainant purchased one Samsung Note II from the Opposite Party No.4. Annexure-B dated 6.3.2014 is the job-sheet, vide which the handset in question was repaired from an Authorized Service Centre at Rajpura. Annexure-C dated 12.03.2014 is another job-sheet (after six days of the previous repair), vide which the service was taken from the Authorized Service Centre at Chandigarh (Opposite Party No.3). The repair for the said defect was declared out of warranty due to the liquid spots over the handset. As per the case of the Complainant, the handset damaged due to its inherent manufacturing defect.

 

9.     The stand taken by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is that there is no such proof on record proving the nature of the defect or the manufacturing defect. It has been urged that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 cannot be made liable for the Complainant’s own fault to damage the handset due to its exposure to the liquid/ fluid. 

 

10.     It is important to note that the handset in question was purchased on 18.4.2013 as per Annexure-A and got repaired on 6.3.2014 vide Annexure-B, first time after its continuous usage of approx. 11 months. Since the handset functioned properly for a period of approx. one year, prior to any fault, therefore, mere oral assertions of the Complainant regarding the damage of the same due to certain manufacturing defect, cannot be believed as such. Moreover, the Complainant has not produced any expert evidence to either show the nature of the defect or proof of any manufacturing defect.

 

11.     Admittedly, the liquid spots were noticed by the Complainant herself when the handset in question was got repaired, for the first time, vide Annexure-B on 6.3.2014 from the Service Centre at Rajpura. However, the Complainant has not impleaded that very Service Centre as a party in the present case. We feel that only that Service Centre could explain about the reasons of the liquid spots after repair done by it as alleged by the Complainant. Therefore, it is somehow admitted fact that damage to the handset has been caused due to its exposure to the liquid/ fluid. Certainly, if a product is exposed to liquid, got damaged due to certain external reasons, automatically its warranty gets void.

 

12.     Henceforth, judged from every angle and in view of the foregoings, we have no hesitation to conclude that the complainants have not been able to prove their case of alleged deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties.  Therefore, we do not find any merit, weight and substance in the present complaint.  Thus, the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

13.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

25^th May, 2015                           

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER