DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.131 of 26-03-2013

Decided on 25-06-2013

Harish Goyal aged about 28 years S/o Shishan Pal Goyal S/o Tej Ram R/o House No.6229, Lakhi Ram Street, Sirki Bazar, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044, through its M.D.

2.M/s Apple Communication, Park Road, Opposite Fires Station, Sri Mukatsar Sahib, through its proprietor.

3. Samsung Customer Service Centre, Backside Dr.Nagpal Hospital, Mall Road, Bathinda, through its Incharge.

.......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.Shishan Pal, A.R of the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Kuljit Pal Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.1.

Sh.Naresh Kumar, counsel for the opposite party No.3 and also Sh.Ashish Jindal, opposite party No.3 in person.

Opposite party No.2 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 one Samsung mobile handset with one year warranty. The complainant was told by the opposite parties that in case of any defect in the said mobile handset it will be replaced with new one or all its parts will be replaced free of costs. The said mobile handset became faulty and the opposite party No.3 charged Rs.1220/- for its repair and after that the said mobile handset was returned to the complainant on 19.3.2013 but after half an hour its previous fault reoccurred. Again on the same day the complainant took the said mobile handset to the opposite party No.3 and it got deposited Rs.800/- from his father and kept Rs.420/- as balance. Thereafter the father of the complainant again visited the office of the opposite party No.3 on the date of appointment i.e. 20.3.2012 but the said mobile handset was not returned and it was disclosed to him that the said mobile handset will be returned after 30.3.2013 i.e. after the warranty period and it will charge Rs.4500/- more after that. The complainant repeatedly visited the opposite parties for the delivery of the said mobile handset or to give new mobile handset or in alternative to return the price of the said mobile handset. The complainant alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset that cannot be repaired. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to replace the said mobile handset with new one alongwith 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 pleaded that the complainant purchased the said mobile handset from Muktsar Sahib beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this forum, from the opposite party No.2 which is having its place of work at Muktsar Sahib as mentioned in the head note of the complaint. Thus no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this forum and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Under the warranty the obligation of the opposite party No.1 is to set right the said mobile handset. The performance of the said mobile handset depends upon the handling of the product, there is every possibility that the said mobile handset has been mishandled and might have fallen while being used by the complainant or his family members. The complainant has purchased the said mobile handset on 30.3.2012 and the alleged problem occurred in the said mobile handset in March, 2013 i.e. after 12 months of its purchase. The liability of the opposite party No.1 under the terms and conditions of the warranty is limited to the extent to set right the product by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. No such assurance to replace the said mobile handset is given by the opposite party No.1 under the terms of the warranty and the complainant cannot claim more than he has agreed to. The complainant approached the service centre of the opposite party No.1 only once and the said problem was duly rectified. The said problem was due to the bend in the mother board of the mobile handset in question, moreover the said defect arose due to the negligence and mishandling and was not covered under the warranty and was chargeable. The said mobile handset was delivered back in the satisfactory condition. As per the information of the opposite party No.1 the said mobile handset is fully operational and there is no alleged problem. However, as a goodwill gesture the opposite party No.1 is still ready to render the further service with regard to the said mobile handset, if required. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect or inferior quality of any specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of the expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of his allegations. After the consent of the complainant the said mobile handset was duly repaired and returned to the complainant in satisfactory working condition. The opposite party No.1 denied that the said mobile handset was taken to the opposite party No.3 again on the same day and it got deposited Rs.800/- from the complainant's father and kept Rs.420/- as balance. The averments of the complainant that his father visited the office of the opposite party No.3 on 20.3.2013 and the said mobile handset was returned and it was disclosed to him that the said mobile handset will be returned after 30.3.2013 after the warranty period and it will charge Rs.4500/- more are false. If the said mobile handset is retained for the service or repair by the service centre of the opposite party No.3, a regular receipt is issued to the customer for the said mobile handset. In the present case the complainant has not produced any receipt in support of his allegations that the said mobile handset has been with the opposite party No.3 and it is not returning the same.

3. The opposite party No.2 despite service of summons has failed to appear before this Forum. Hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.2.

4. The opposite party No.3 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the true facts are that while using the said mobile handset, the complainant has been negligent in its use and due to the mishandling or fall of the said mobile handset its LCD has broken. The complainant has brought the said mobile handset with its broken screen and was told that the breakage of the screen do not bear any guarantee or warranty as per the norms of the company and he was also told that Rs.1220/- will have to be paid for the change of the LCD screen. The complainant agreed to the same and vide job sheet dated 11.3.2013 he handed over the said mobile handset to the opposite party No.3 and paid Rs.300/- in advance on account of charges of breakage of the LCD screen of the said mobile handset. But the complainant did not come to take the delivery of the said mobile handset and was telephonically informed and he came to the shop/service centre of the opposite party No.3 on 19.3.2013 and paid another sum of Rs.500/- towards the replacement of the broken LCD screen and the same was changed and it was found that there is a fault of front colour problem i.e. LCD broken (Bend on PBA Sensor Broken) in the said mobile handset. The complainant was asked by the opposite party No.3 to return the said mobile handset as it is but on the same day after receiving the said mobile handset he again deposited the same with it and thereafter he never came back to take its delivery and has filed this complaint before this forum. There is no dispute regarding the durability or quality of the products of the opposite party No.1. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 with the problem of touch screen. As per the norms of the company and terms and conditions of the warranty there is no guarantee or warranty in case there is any defect in the said mobile handset due to its breakage or due to its mishandling. There is no manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset. The broken mobile cannot be changed or replaced, rather the same is to be get repaired on the payment basis, as per the company rules. The company has informed the complainant that the said defect in the said mobile handset is not covered under the warranty.

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 has got repaired the said mobile handset from the opposite party No.3. The LCD screen of the said mobile handset was broken and Rs.1220/- has been charged for its repair.

8. The disputed facts of the parties are that the complainant submitted that as the said mobile handset was under the warranty of one year as such the opposite parties have wrongly charged the amount of Rs.1220/- on account of the replacement of its LCD screen. The defect re-occurred in the said mobile handset after half an hour and it was taken to the opposite party No.3 and it got deposited Rs.800/- from the complainant's father and kept Rs.420/- as balance. On the fix date of appointment i.e. 20.3.2012 the said mobile handset was not returned and it was disclosed to him that it will be returned after 30.3.2013 i.e. after the warranty period and it will charge Rs.4500/- more after that. The complainant requested the opposite parties to give the new mobile handset or in the alternative to return the price of the said mobile handset. The officials of the opposite party No.3 orally informed the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset that cannot be repaired.

9. On the other hand the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 submitted that the complainant has been negligent in using the said mobile handset and due to the mishandling or its fall its LCD has broken. The complainant has brought the said mobile handset with the broken LCD screen, he was told that the breakage of the screen do not bear any guarantee or warranty as per the norms of the company and further conveyed that Rs.1220/- will have to be paid for the replacement of the LCD screen. The complainant agreed to the same and vide job sheet dated 11.3.2013, he handed over the said mobile handset to the opposite party No.3 and paid Rs.300/- in advance on account of the charges of the breakage of the LCD screen of the said mobile handset. After that the complainant approached the shop/service centre of the opposite party No.3 on 19.3.2013 and paid another sum of Rs.500/- towards the replacement of the broken LCD screen and the same was changed and it was found that there is a fault of front colour problem i.e. LCD broken (Bend on PBA Sensor Broken) in the said mobile handset. The complainant was asked by the opposite party No.3 to return the said mobile handset as it is and the same was deposited with the opposite party No.3 and thereafter the complainant did not come back to take the delivery of the said mobile handset and has filed the present complaint.

10. The job sheet dated 11.3.2013 Ex.C2 shows the defect description:-LCD Broken; Remark:-PBA bend, total estimate Rs.1220/- cash-300 balance-920. Again on job sheet dated 19.3.2013 Ex.C3 the defect description is given 'LCD broken (bend on PBA sensor broken)'; Remark:-Total Est/-1220, cash/-800, Bal/-420'. A further perusal of record placed on file shows that the complainant purchased the said mobile handset on 30.3.2012 vide invoice No.749 Ex.C4 and has brought the said mobile handset with the LCD screen problem on 11.3.2013 for the first time and thereafter on 19.3.2013 which is sufficient to prove that there is neither any manufacturing inherit defect in the said mobile handset nor the defect is irrepairable. The LCD screen has been broken due to the mishandling on the part of the complainant. Hence not cover under the warranty. A perusal of warranty condition No.7 of Ex.C5 shows that:-

“7) In case of any damage to the product/misuse detected by the Authorized Service Centre personnel, the warranty conditions are not applicable and repairs will be done subject to availability of parts and on a chargeable basis only.”

11. The opposite party No.1 has taken the legal objection that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as the complainant has purchased the said mobile handset from Muktsar Sahib and has produced the bill issued by the dealer of Muktsar Sahib i.e. opposite party No.2. Admitted facts of the parties are that the said mobile handset has been taken to the service centre of the opposite party No.1 i.e. opposite party No.3 at Bathinda thus one of the opposite parties is having its office at Bathinda hence this forum has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The complainant has alleged that till date his mobile handset is lying with the opposite party No.3, the opposite party No.3 has specifically mentioned in its reply that the complainant has been informed to collect his mobile handset but instead of collecting the same he has filed the present complaint.

12. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file it has been proved that the LCD screen of the said mobile handset was broken due to some external hit or fall or mishandling by the complainant. Broken LCD screen, bend on PBA, broken Sensor show that there defects are not due to any manufacturing defect. If the LCD screen of the said mobile handset has been broken or there would have been bend in the mother board (PBA), the said mobile handset would not have worked properly and the complainant might have noticed these defects earlier whereas the complainant has lodged the complaint approximately after one year of its date of purchase i.e. 30.3.2012 and the complainant has reported the defects regarding the broken screen on 11.3.2013 meaning thereby the LCD screen and mother board of the said mobile handset were in O.K condition at the time of purchase and damaged due to some external hit or fall or mishandling on the part of the complainant. Thus the opposite party No.3 has rightly charged the amount of Rs.1220/- for the repair of the said mobile handset from the complainant. As per Clause 7 of the warranty condition the said mobile handset was out of the warranty due to its mishandling.

13. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, thus this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. However the opposite party No.3 will return the said mobile handset to the complainant immediately.

14. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

25-06-2013

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member