Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/359

Naresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

sumit Kumar Adv.

30 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 359 of  04.06.2015

   Date of Decision            :   30.09.2016

 

Naresh Kumar aged about 46 years son of Shri Rattan Lal Sharma, resident of MIG-19, Phase I, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

 

1.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square Gold Course Road, Gurgaon, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122002, through its CEO.

2.The Authorized Samsung Service Care Centre, M/s. Grace Enterprises, 18-AX, Guru Nanak Tower, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana, through its Authorized Signatory.

3.M/s N.K. Electronics, Shop No.10, Shiv Complex (Basement), Gurmandi, Ludhiana-8, through its Partner/Prop.

IInd Address: Shop No.A-1, Mandir Market, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana-8.

 

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS.VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :         Sh.Sumit Kumar, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate

For OP2 & OP3             :         Ex-parte

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant Sh.Naresh Kumar, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs, by alleging that he purchased one mobile handset of Samsung Galaxy S Duos 7562 for an amount of Rs.6000/- from OP3 on 31.01.2015 vide invoice No.491 dated 31.01.2015. Ops assured the said mobile to be best one by claiming that Op3 is the authorized dealer of Op1. In March 2015, the said mobile started creating problems of hanging, network and of voice. Then  complainant visited the authorized service centre i.e. OP2 and he(complainant) was issued token No.F150314013/14032015/11:44:5 (F13) dated 14.3.2015. Thereafter, the complainant handed over the mobile handset to the officials of OP2, who after verifying disclosed that mobile handset is not of Samsung Company, but the same is duplicate copy of the Samsung Company. Complainant did show the box of the mobile handset of the company along with issued bill, but the officials of OP2 denied to accept the mobile handset. Then the complainant visited OP3 for disclosing about the said incident by claiming that he has cheated the complainant for causing wrongful loss to him. OP3 was requested to replace the mobile handset with original one, but OP3 refused to replace the mobile handset. OP3 disclosed that mobile handset is original Samsung handset and the same will not create any problem in future. Complainant suffered mental harassment on account of all this and as such, by pleading deficiency in service, compensation of Rs.50,000/- sought along with litigation expenses. Directions also sought against Ops to replace the defective mobile handset with new or to refund the amount of the mobile handset along with interest.

2.                OP2 and OP3 are ex-parte in this case, but OP1 filed written statement by claiming that that complaint has been filed by misusing the process of law because the complainant has concealed the material facts. It is claimed that legitimate ground for replacement of the mobile handset has not been set forth by the complainant. Mobile handset in question never submitted with OP2 for any kind of repair and as such, the complainant has no cause of action. Inspection of the mobile handset by the authorized service centre/ service engineer is required for settling the matter as to whether the mobile handset in question is original or duplicate. It is claimed that there is no deficiency in service or breach of contract on the part of Ops. Ops have never denied, after sale, services to the complainant and even they are still ready to provide services to the complainant, but subject to verification and inspection of the mobile handset and also subject to the condition as to whether the mobile handset covered under the warranty on finding originality. Performance of the mobile handset depends on the physical handling of the product, apart from installation and downloading of various mobile applications, games and other software. The alleged problem of hanging and network may have occurred, due to installation of non-compatible mobile applications. There is no other inherent defect in the mobile handset. Problem of hanging can duly be rectified   by OP2 by reloading the updated software subject to the condition that the mobile handset in question is original. Direction even sought to the complainant to submit his mobile handset before this Forum or to the authorized service centre for inspection and expert opinion. Complainant has not alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect or about the inferior quality of any part of the product. Authentic   report of the expert or of qualified expert of Central approved laboratories in support of submission has not been submitted. In the absence of technical expert report, complaint of the complainant cannot be decided. Refund or replacement of the mobile handset is not permissible as per the terms and conditions of the warranty because the same permissible only where defects developed during the period of warranty and the defects found irreparable. OP1 is not liable for any defects developed after lapse of the warranty. Each and every other allegation of the complaint denied including that of purchase of the mobile handset in question from OP3.  

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents EX.C1 to Ex.C4 and then his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager of OP1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments addressed and were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                It is vehemently contended by counsel for the complainant that the mobile handset in question purchased through invoice Ex.C3 from OP3 on 31.01.2015, but when this mobile taken to the service centre of OP1 i.e. OP2, then Token Ex.C4 was issued. Further, it is contended that the officials of OP2 found the mobile handset in question to be duplicate one and as such, they refused to rectify the defects of hangover, network and of voice problem. However, after going through Ex.C4, it is made out as if the complainant was asked upon to wait for his turn. So, contents of Ex.C4 do not at all establish that actually the officials of OP2 checked the mobile handset in question.

7.                However, on application dated 10.8.2015 filed by the counsel for OP1 for directing the complainant to submit the mobile handset for inspection by the authorized service engineer, complainant was required to submit the mobile handset before this Forum vide orders dated 23.11.2015. Further, through this orders of 23.11.2015, OP1 was called upon to bring the authorized service engineer for inspection of the mobile handset for finding the originality and duplicity thereof. In pursuance of these orders, Sh.Gursimran Singh, Service Engineer of OP1 inspected the mobile handset of the complainant and found the same  not manufactured by Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Further, the said Sh.Gursimran Singh through recorded statement dated 23.2.2016 claimed that the said mobile handset is not imported and marketed by Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. So, expert opinion has been brought on record by OP1 to establish that the mobile handset purchased by the complainant from OP3 through invoice Ex.C3 is a duplicate product not manufactured by OP1. In view of this, submissions advanced by counsel for OP1 certainly has force that deficiency in service or  adoption of unfair trade practice, if any, is on the part of OP3, the seller and not on part of       OP1.

8.                Whenever a product is sold with the disclosure of same being manufactured by a particular company, but in fact the same is not found so manufactured, then certainly the seller can be said to be have cheated the  customer. That cheating amounts to an unfair trade practice on the part of OP3 and as such, liability for refund of Rs.6000/- with interest or of paying the amount of compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses remains of seller i.e. Op3 only.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, present complaint allowed against OP3 only by holding that OP3 will refund the amount of Rs.6000/-(i.e. the value of the mobile handset in question) to the complainant with interest @8% per annum from the date of complaint namely 4.6.2015 till payment. Complaint against OP1 and OP2 is dismissed. OP3 will pay the above referred amount of Rs.6000/- with interest as held above within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to surrender of the mobile handset in question by the complainant with OP3 within that period of 30 days. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/- more  allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP3. Compliance of directions payment of compensation and litigation amount be also made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Vinod Bala)                                           (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:30.09.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.