| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 484 of 2015 Date of Institution: 06-08-2015 Date of Decision: 15-03-2016 Vinay Sharma son of Sh.Rajesh Kumar Sharma, resident of H.No.40-41, Fakir Singh Colony, Gali No.5, Outside Gate Hakima, Amritsar. Versus - Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, B-1, Sector 81, Phase 2, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P) through its Manager/ Director/ Person Over All Incharge.
- Golden Mobile Communication, Hall Bazar, Amritsar, through its Partner/ Proprietor/ Person Over All Incharge.
- Y.P.Enterprises, Authorised Service Centre of Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, Shop No.3, Deep Complex, Amritsar, through is Partner/ Proprietor/ Person Over All Incharge.
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Abhishek Rattan Gill, Advocate For Opposite Parties No. 1 and 3: Mrs.Preeti Mahajan, Advocate For Opposite Party No.2: Exparte. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Vinay Sharma under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased a Samsung Mobile Set Model E 5 Samsung Galaxy IMEI No. 358271/06/194844/9 for a sum of Rs.15,300/- vide Invoice No. 7265 from Opposite Party No.2, manufactured
 by Opposite Party No.1. Complainant alleges that after about 20 days from the date of purchase of Mobile Set in question, said Mobile Set developed some defect in its screen/ display. The brother of the complainant namely Vikas Sharma, approached Opposite Party No.3-Authorised Service Centre on 15.6.2015 and requested them to rectify the defect in the Mobile Set in question, but Opposite Party No.3-Authorised Service Centre stated that there is some inherent/ manufacturing defect in the display of the Mobile Set and kept the Mobile Set with them against job sheet dated 15.6.2015 and told the brother of the complainant to collect the Mobile Set in question after 3-4 hours on the same date. Thereafter, the complainant visited the Opposite Party No.3-Authorised Service Centre on so many occasions, but Opposite Party No.3 started dilly delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and refused to remove the defect in the Mobile Set of the complainant and even not returned the Mobile Set in question which is still lying with Opposite Party No.3. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to Opposite Parties to replace the Mobile Set of the complainant with new one or to refund the entire sale price of the Mobile Set alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase till the payment is made to the complainant. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded. - On notice, Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that had the complainant approached the service centre of Opposite Party No.1 with correct facts, prompt service would have been provided, but rather than doing so, the complainant has instead preferred the present motivated complaint, hence the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal on this ground alone. The complainant could not prove any inherent/ manufacturing defect in the product nor the complainant has placed on record any analysis test report or report of any expert to prove that Mobile Set of the complainant was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect which is beyond repair. Moreover, the complainant on his part is responsible for the breakdown of the device, since, it is due to the reckless usage of the Mobile Set without any reasonable care that the aforesaid Mobile Set went out of order. The Mobile Set has been facing constant technical glitches for the reasons that the complainant had got the Mobile Set jeopardized with ‘water’ because of which the Mobile Set started facing the problems in proper functioning. Mobile Set is water logged which is not covered under the warranty. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, so Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 8.10.2015 of this Forum.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Anindya Bose Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1
- 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 both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased Samsung Mobile Set in question from Opposite Party No.2 on 23.5.2015 vide Invoice Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.15,300/-. Complainant submitted that after 20 days from the date of purchase, said Mobile Set developed defect such as screen/ display problem. The complainant through his brother namely Vikas Sharma, approached Opposite Party No.3-Authorised Service Centre on 15.6.2015 for the removal of the said defect, but Opposite Party No.3 stated that there is some inherent/ manufacturing defect in the display of the said Mobile Set. Opposite Party No.3-Authorised Service Centre received the said Mobile Set and issued job card dated 15.6.2015 Ex.C2 with the assurance that the defect in the Mobile Set in question will be removed and told to the brother of the complainant to collect the Mobile Set after 3-4 hours. Thereafter, the complainant visited Opposite Party No.3 on so many times, but Opposite Party No.3 neither repaired the Mobile Set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant nor Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 replaced the Mobile Set of the complainant with new one and the same is still lying with Opposite Party No.3-Authorised Service Centre. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3.
- Whereas the case of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 is that the complainant could not prove any inherent/ manufacturing defect in the product nor the complainant has placed on record any analysis test report or report of any expert to prove that Mobile Set of the complainant was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect which is beyond repair. Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 submitted that the complainant himself is responsible for the breakdown of the device, due to the reckless usage of the Mobile Set without any reasonable care, as a result of which the aforesaid Mobile Set went out of order. The complainant has got the Mobile Set jeopardized with water. Mobile Set is water logged which is not covered under the warranty. Ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties qua the complainant.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased Samsung Mobile Set Model E 5 Samsung Galaxy IMEI No. 358271/06/194844/9 from Opposite Party No.2 on 23.5.2015 vide Invoice Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.15,300/-. Said Mobile Set became defective and its display became out of order. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.3-Authorised Service Centre of Opposite Party No.1 through his brother on 15.6.2015 and Opposite Party No.3-Authorised Service Centre kept the Mobile Set with them and issued job sheet dated 15.6.2015 Ex.C2 and told the brother of the complainant to collect the Mobile Set in question after 3-4 hours, but Opposite Party No.3 could not repair the Mobile Set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant. Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 submitted that the screen/ display of the Mobile Set of the complainant became out of order due to misuse of the Mobile Set by the complainant. Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 in their written version further alleged that Mobile Set of the complainant was water/ liquid logged which is not covered under the warranty. But the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 neither filed any affidavit of Opposite Party No.3 to prove that the Mobile Set of the complainant is water/ liquid logged nor Opposite Party No.3 appeared and dared to file any affidavit to prove that Mobile Set of the complainant became defective due to misuse of the Mobile Set by the complainant or that it was water/ liquid logged, nor Opposite Party No.3-Authorised Service Centre produced the Mobile Set of the complainant in this Forum to prove that it was water logged or it was misused by the complainant. All this is concocted story made by Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 and they have failed to prove the same, rather Opposite Party No.3-Authorised Service Centre failed to rectify the defect in the Mobile Set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant and since 15.6.2015 said Mobile Set of the complainant has been lying with Opposite Party No.3-Authorised Service Centre. As such, it stands fully proved on record that Mobile Set of the complainant is not repairable and as such, Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 are liable to replace the Mobile Set of the complainant with new one or to refund the price of the Mobile Set to the complainant.
- Resultantly, we allow the complaint with costs and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 are directed to replace the Mobile Set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the entire sale price i.e.15,300/- of the Mobile Set, to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the sale price of the Mobile Set in question, from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 are also directed to pay the litigation expenses to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,000/-. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 15-03-2016. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
