DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 106
Instituted on: 20.03.2017
Decided on: 21.06.2017
Rinku Garg son of Shri Ramesh Kumar, resident of H.No.49, Nim Wali Gali Mansa, Tehsil and Distt. Mansa.
…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. Gaurav Communications, 1st Floor, Inside Gaushalla Road, Near Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its Proprietor.
3. M/s. Shiva Communications, Gurudwara Chowk, Mansa through its Proprietor/Partner.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Ritesh Jindal, 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 Rinku Garg, 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 Model GS-6 for Rs.33,500/- vide invoice number 2324 dated 10.03.2016 from OP number 3, which was having one year warranty/guarantee in all respects. It is further averred that in the month of December, 2016, the complainant noticed that the front body/display colour of the mobile set has been removed and damaged due to poor quality and as such he approached OP number 3 for removal of the defect, who advised to approach OP number 2, the service centre of OP company, and after checking of the mobile set OP number 2 told the complainant that they will replace the entire display and further advised to collect the mobile set after three days and the Op number 2 also issued job sheet dated 1.3.2017 to the complainant. When the complainant approached the Op number 2 after four or five days, the Ops did not give any satisfactory reply and put off the matter on one pretext or the other. 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 27.4.2017.
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 as the complainant has submitted his hand set for the first time with the OP number 2 on 1.3.2017 after about 11 months of its purchase with the ‘display damaged’ condition as some object might have fallen on the display screen of the handset or hand set might have fallen leading to damage. The job sheet was duly issued by Op number 2. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging false allegations, that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint. It is further averred that the hand set in question has been alleged to be purchased on 10.3.2016 for the first time and submitted to OP number 2 on 1.3.2017 after more than 11 months and on inspection the hand set was found to be physically damaged by mishandling and the same is not covered under the warranty and repair was to be done on chargeable basis only. The estimate of repair was not approved by the complainant, hence the hand set was not repaired. That there is no deficiency of service or breach of contract on the part of the OPs. The OP service centre has never denied after sales services to the complainant and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant subject to the warranty terms and conditions. On merits, the purchase of the mobile set vide bill number 2324 dated 10.03.2016 for Rs.33,500/- is admitted from OP number 3. It has been denied that the mobile set in question was suffering from any problem. It is further stated that the display of the hand set was found damaged when hand set was submitted with the OP number 2 on 1.3.2017 which is not covered under the warranty conditions. Thus, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 original job sheet 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 Kulwant 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-2 is the copy of the invoice dated 10.03.2016 issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the Samsung mobile set in question for Rs.33,500/-, 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 10.3.2016, but the complainant has averred in the complaint that the mobile set in question suffered the problem i.e. front body/display colour of the mobile set and the same was damaged due to poor quality, but a bare perusal of the file clearly shows that the complainant approached OP number 2 i.e. Service Centre of OP number 3 only on 1.3.2017 with the display damage problem, as is evident from the copy of job order sheet Annexure-I on record. On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 2 is that the complainant was apprised that the display of the mobile set has been damaged by the complainant and the same is not covered under the warranty conditions and for the repair of the same the complainant had to pay the charges, but the complainant did not approve the estimate, as such the OP number 2 did not conduct any repairs of the mobile set in question. It is further case of the OP that the complainant did not turn up after depositing the mobile set with the OP number 2. On the other hand, the case of the complainant is that the complainant noticed that the front body/display colour of the mobile set was damaged due to poor quality in the month of December, 2016. But, to support this contention the complainant has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record. Now, the fact remains that the complainant filed the present complaint at the fag end i.e. after the expiry of the warranty which expired on 20.3.2017. But, it is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not produced any evidence on record to show that he ever approached OP number 2 after depositing the mobile set on 1.3.2017. The OP number 2 has also produced the expert report, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that after receipt of the mobile set on 1.3.2017 the same was inspected and found that there was physical damage to the hand set of the complainant and the display of mobile set was broken and this fact was duly conveyed to the complainant on the same day, so the hand set is not covered under the warranty and the repair was only on the chargeable basis and estimate of the repair was given to the complainant. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Ops that the complainant has himself damaged the display and as such the same is not covered under the warranty conditions. To rebut, this contention, the complainant has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record nor has filed any rejoinder nor has denied this fact by way of affidavit. As such, we feel that the complainant has failed to establish his case, much less any manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question.
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.
June 21, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
