THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 560-14
Date of Institution : 27.10.2014
Date of Decision : 16.06.2015
Sh. Sandeep Gupta S/o Sh. M.C. Gupta, R/o 47, Green City, Akash Avenue, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd., 2nd, 3rd and 4th floor, Tower C, Vipual Tech.Sequre, Old Golf Road, Sector 43, Gurgaon, Haryana
Samsung Service Centre, Nehru Shopping Complex, Lawrence Road, Amritsar
K.R.Electronics, 42, Liberty Market, Railway Link Road, Amritsar
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh.A.K.Sharma,Advocate
For the opposite party 1 : Ms. Preety Mahajan,Advocate
For opposite party No.2 : Sh.Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For opposite party No.3 : Ex-parte
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Sandeep Gupta under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased a Samsung Mobiile Galaxy Grand vide bill No. 618 dated 27.10.2013 for a sum of Rs. 17600/- from opposite party No.3. According to the complainant soon after the purchase of the mobile set , it started giving trouble to the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint with opposite party No.2 on 11.7.2014 that the mobile got hanged and sometimes the said mobile get heated up and works very slow. Opposite party No.2 received the set from the complainant and the opposite party No.2 issued the slip without date. But the mobile set was again having same problem and complainant again handed over the mobile to opposite party No.2 on 16.9.2014 for which opposite party No.2 again issued slip without date. Opposite party No.2 again returned back the set without rectifying the defect. The complainant then approached the opposite party and requested them to replace the said set as the same is under warranty period , but opposite party did not listen the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties either to replace the mobile set or to refund the amount to the tune of Rs. 17600/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the handset was submitted with opposite party No.2 with problem of Hanging, working very slow and heat up. On inspection by opposite party No.2, it was found that handset was loaded with non-compatible mobile applications and games and very less memory was left unused leading to corruption of software and resultantly the handset got hanged and was working very slow. It was submitted that as the handset was covered under warranty the non-compatible mobile applications and games were removed and updated software was reloaded in the handset and the handset was made OK to the satisfaction of the complainant. It was further submitted that the handset has been mishandled while being used by the complainant or his family members. It was submitted that the complainant brought his handset to opposite party No.2 on 11.7.2014 after 7 months of purchase of the mobile with problem of “Hang, working very slow and heat up” and the same problems were rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.2 did not file written version as well as evidence and has made statement adopting the written version and evidence filed by opposite party No.1.
4. Opposite party No.3 did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.11.2014.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of customer information slip Ex,.C-3 and C-4.
6. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of sh.Shriniwas Joshi, Senior Manager Ex.OP1/1
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant purchased mobile phone from opposite party No.3 vide invoice dated 27.10.2013 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 17600/-. The complainant alleges that soon after the purchase of the mobile set, it started giving problem and the complainant reported the matter to opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of Samsung company on 11.7.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C-3, who received the set and handed over the same to the complainant after repair, But even thereafter the set was having same problem and it was again handed over to opposite party No.2 on 16.9.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C-4. However, opposite party No.2 did not mention any date on both the job sheets Ex.C-3 and C-4. The opposite party No.2 again returned the mobile set to the complainant without rectifying the defect by stating that they are unable to remove the defect. The complainant thereafter approached opposite party No.1 to replace the mobile set, but the opposite party did not pay any heed the request of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
9. Whereas case of opposite party No.1 is that the complainant brought the mobile set to opposite party No.1 on 11.7.2014 with problem of “hang, working very slow and heat up”. On inspection of the handset by opposite party No.2 the the handset was found to be loaded with non compatible mobile applications and games and very less memory was left unused leading to corruption of software and resultantly the handset got hanged and was working very slow. Same applications were removed. Software was duly updated and reloaded and the handset was delivered back to the complainant in OK condition. Thereafter the complainant has never visited the opposite party No.2 with any kind of problem in the hand set. However, opposite party No.1 further submitted that in case the handset of the complainant has any problem the complainant be directed to submit his handset with the authorized service centre i.e. opposite party NO.2 for inspection and expert opinion regarding the exact condition of the handset. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of any specific part of the product nor filed report of any expert/qualified mechanic/Lab to prove that the mobile set is not repairable or has manufacturing defect. Ld.counsel for opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased Samsung Mobile set from opposite party No.3 vide invoice dated 27.10.2013 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 17600/-. The said set became defective with problem of hang, working very slow and heat up and the complainant handed over the handset to opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of Samsung company for rectification of the problem on 11.7.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C-3 and this fact has also been admitted by the opposite party in their written version. The said mobile set was set right. The software was duly updated and reloaded and the handset was delivered back to the complainant. But the handset did not work properly and the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 on 16.9.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C-4. No doubt the opposite party No.1 has denied this fact but the complainant has produced on record job sheet Ex.C-4 issued by opposite party No.2 without date. So the opposite party cannot be allowed to say that the complainant never approached opposite party No.2 with any problem in the hand set after 11.7.2014. This time again there was software and hang problem in the mobile set. Again the opposite party rectified the problem and handed over the set to the complainant. But the set again did not work properly and having the problem of hanging and the complainant has filed the present complaint. But the complainant could not produce any evidence that the mobile set in question is having any manufacturing defect and the handset is not repairable. However , the handset became defective during the warranty period, as such the opposite parties are liable to rectify the problem , if any in the hand set without charging any amount from the complainant.
11. Resultantly this complaint is disposed of with the directions to the complainant to produce the mobile hand set, if there is any defect in the same before the authorized service centre of Samsung Company i.e. opposite party No.2 , within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of orders and opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to rectify the problem , if any, in the mobile hand set of the complainant and to make it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant, without charging any amount from the complainant as per terms and conditions of the warranty, within 15 days from the date of receipt of mobile set from the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
12. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
16.06.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
