DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.115 of 19-03-2013
Decided on 27-06-2013
Mukesh Mehra aged about 40 years S/o Rajinder Kumar R/o # 25111, Hazi Rattan Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Suites No.101-103, 1st floor, Copia Corporation Suites, Plot No.9, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi-110 026, through its Managing Director.
2.M/s Shri Ram Tele Services, SCF 62, Amrik Singh Road, near Hotel, Bathinda, through its proprietor/partner (Authorized Service Centre of Samsung).
3.Aggarwal Mobile Point, Purana Bazar, Shanidev Tample Road, Hanumangarh Town, through its proprietor/partner.
.......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.Satvir Singh, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Kuljit Pal Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Ashish Jindal, prop. of opposite party No.2 in person.
Opposite party No.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 purchased the Samsung S-3 mobile model GT-9300 bearing IMEI No.353163057083635 from the opposite party No.3 vide bill No.6550 dated 14.6.2012 against the cash payment of Rs.36,900/- with one year warranty. The bezel paint of the said mobile handset started peeling off after sometime from the date of its purchase. The complainant made the complaint to the opposite party No.3 with regard to the peeling off the bezel paint and it asked him to get it checked from the service centre of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2, the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1 did not take the said mobile handset on the pretext that it will first contact with the opposite party No.1. The complainant approached the service centre time and again but to no avail. Thereafter the complainant lodged the complaint with the opposite party No.1 on its website on 25.2.2013 but no reply was received, he again lodged the complaint on its website on 27.2.2013. Thereafter the complainant took the said mobile handset to the opposite party No.2 on 2.3.2013 with a request to replace its body with new one as the said mobile handset was within the warranty period and the opposite party No.2 accepted the said mobile handset vide bill No.4147658747 and filled the warranty status as 'Full Warranty' and asked the complainant to come after sometime. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 after lunch on 2.3.2013 but it refused to replace the outer body of the said mobile handset on the pretext that it is covered under the warranty and he should have to pay Rs.6400/- as cost of the repair/replacement of the outer body and refused to attend the complaint. After receiving the said mobile handset without repair from the opposite party No.2 by the complainant, he checked his e-mail at about 1:30 pm to know the reply of the opposite party No.1 and he was astonished to know that the opposite party No.1 replied that the company does not consider the outer body of the said mobile handset under the warranty and its repair or replacement will be done on chargeable basis. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties have given the warranty on the mobile handset as whole and the opposite party No.3 did not disclose at the time of selling the said mobile handset that its outer body has no warranty. Moreover the outer body of the said mobile handset is also its part and any defect in it is defect in the said mobile handset. The opposite parties have manipulated the alleged version lateron with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties either to replace the outer body of the said mobile handset with new one or to refund its amount i.e. Rs.36,900/- alongwith interest, cost and compensation.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and denied that the complainant purchased the Samsung S-3 mobile handset from the opposite party No.3 vide bill No.6550 dated 14.6.2012 against the cash payment or the opposite party No.3 gave warranty of one year on its purchase. The opposite party No.1 has only given the warranty regarding the defect in the said mobile handset. The outer body of the said mobile handset is not covered under the warranty. The opposite party No.1 denied that the bezel paint of the said mobile handset started peeling off after sometime and also denied that the complainant lodged the complaint with the opposite party No.1 on its website on 25.2.2013 or 27.2.2013 or he has taken the said mobile handset to the opposite party No.2 on 2.3.2013 with alleged complaint or the opposite party No.2 accepted the said mobile handset vide bill No.4147658747 and filled the warranty status as 'Full Warranty' and asked the complainant to come after sometime or the opposite party No.2 refused to replace the outer body of the said mobile handset on the pretext that it is not within the warranty and he should pay Rs.6400/- as cost of the outer body. The opposite party No.1 further pleaded that the peeling off the paint itself shows that the said mobile handset has been mishandled by the complainant and its repair or replacement is on the chargeable basis as the outer body of the said mobile handset is not covered under the warranty.
3. The opposite party No.2 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the true facts are that there was defect of fading and peeling off the colour of the outer body. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 with the said problem, vide job card dated 2.3.2013 the said mobile handset was received with the note 'Cosmetic colour problem' but as per the terms and conditions of the warranty the said colour problem is not covered under the warranty. The problem of peeling and fading off the colour may be the result of mishandling on the part of the complainant, this was duly conveyed to the complainant. The opposite party No.2 is a service centre of the company and is to perform the service as per the policy of the company as the said problem is not covered under the warranty so the same was duly communicated to the complainant and he was told that for the purpose of the removal of the said problems he will have to pay the charges but he did not agree and has filed the present complaint.
4. The opposite party No.3 despite service of summons has failed to appear before this Forum. Hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.3.
5. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
7. Admitted facts of the parties are that the complainant purchased the Samsung S-3 mobile model GT-9300 bearing IMEI No.353163057083635 vide bill No.6550 dated 14.6.2012 against the cash payment of Rs.36,900/- with one year warranty from the opposite party No.3. The bezel paint of the said mobile handset started peeling off after sometime from the date of its purchase.
8. The disputed facts are that the outer body of the mobile in question does not fall under the warranty, thus it cannot be replaced under the warranty. The opposite parties demanded Rs.6400/- as cost for repair/replacement of the outer body of the said mobile handset. As per the terms and conditions of the company the said colour problem is not covered under the warranty as the same is the result of mishandling of the said mobile handset by the complainant.
9. The said mobile handset was purchased by the complainant on 14.6.2012 and after few months of it usage the cosmetic colour problem occurred in the said mobile handset, a job sheet dated 2.3.2013 Ex.C3 issued in this regard. A perusal of service request/job sheet Ex.C3 shows that the total estimate was given of Rs.6393/- on the pretext that the outer body or the cosmetic colour problem is not covered under the warranty. The opposite parties have sold the product as whole. All the products are manufactured by the opposite party No.1. There is no plea of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 that they have purchased the bezel paint from other company or the same was supplied to them of inferior quality. All the parts are assembled together by the opposite party No.1 and the cosmetic paint was done on the said mobile handset to make it single product for selling the same in the market. The peeling off of the bezel paint proves that the quality of the bezel paint/cosmetic colour used on the said mobile handset is of poor quality.
Thus we are of the opinion that if there is any defect in the outer body or the peeling off of the bezel paint/cosmetic colour of the said mobile handset the consumer can get the resort from the opposite parties, thus mere denial on the part of the opposite parties that the outer body is not covered under the terms of the warranty amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. The said mobile handset is sold as a single unit to the complainant, hence all the parts including the bezel paint/cosmetic colour falls under the warranty thus preparing an estimate of Rs.6393/- for cosmetic colour/bezel paint on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service.
10. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.3. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to replace the outer body of the said mobile handset free of cost.
11. The compliance of this order be done within 45 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 the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
27-06-2013
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
