| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 171 of 09-07-2019 Decided on : 30-09-2021 Upinder Kumar Jindal, Advocate, aged 35 years, R/o H. No. 1475, Model Town, Phase III, Bathindat Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Samsung India Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF A to VI, Gurugram (Gurgaon) (Haryana through its Managing Director/Chairman Universal Technologies, Shop No. 72, Ground Floor, Aggarsain Market, Amrik Singh Road, Near Hotel Amson Pride, Bathinda through its Prop./Partner/Manager .......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Present For the complainant : Sh. Ram Chander Pathak, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. K P Sharma, Advocate, for OP No. 1. OP No. 2 exparte. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Upinder Kumar Jindal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Samsung India Pvt. Ltd., and another, (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile hand set make Samsung SM-M205FDA DINS, bearing Sr. No. RZ8M41TFNTX-355667100942587 worth Rs. 10,000/- from Sarvex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Village, Teoru, District Mewat, online through Order No. 403-7113164-2159561 dated 6-5-2019 vide Invoice No. DEL242641. At the time of purchase of mobile handset, complainant was provided one year full guarantee on behalf of the company. The opposite party No. 1 is manufacturer and opposite party No. 2 is authorised service centre. At the time of purchase, complainant was assured that handset is of best quality and company will provide best services in case of any problem in the functioning of handset. It is alleged that mobile hand set did not prove to be of good quality. It started creating problems in functiong from very begining. Since the display of handset was not working properly, complainant took the mobile handset to opposite party No. 2 in the last week of May, 2019. After checking the mobile hand set, opposite party No. 2 provided formal service and assured that there will be no problem but mobile handset did not work properly. It used to swtch off and on automatically. On 11-6-2019, mobile handset switched off automatically and thereafter it did not turn. The complainant took it to opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 after checking the handset, retained it vide Job Sheet dated 11-6-2019 and asked the complainant to inquire about the same after a week. The complainant visited opposite party No. 2 on 13-6-2019, but opposite party No. 2 failed to give any satisfactory reply. It is further allged that complainant continued visiting the opposite party No. 2 time and again but mobile handset could not be repaired and did not turn on. It is lying in the custody of opposite party No. 2 in switched off condition. The complainant requested opposite party No. 2 that handset should be replaced as defect occurred within one month of its purchase and hand set is within warranty, but to no effect. The complainant also requested opposite party No. 2 to refund its price, but opposite party No.2 kept on putting the matter off under one or the other false pretext. Ultimately, opposite party No. 2 refused to accede to the request of the complainant. It is pleaded that mobile hand set of the complainant is lying with opposite party No. 2 since 11-6-2019 and opposite party No. 2 failed to repair the same. There is inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile handset due to which it has become dead. It is alleged that due to above said act of opposite party No. 2, complainant is suffering mental tension, agony and botheration. He has been deprived of using the hand set. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. He has claimed replacement of mobile hand set with new one or in the alternative refund its price. He has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- besides Rs. 5500/- as costs. Hence, this complaint. Registered A.D. Notice of complaint was sent to opposite party No. 1 and dasti to opposite party No. 2. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against it. The opposite party No. 1 put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party No. 1 took preliminary objections that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. No cause of action has arisen to complainant to file the complaint against it. The complainant himself is negligent in using his handset as it has been found damaged internally due to liquid logging which is a warranty void condition. It has been pleaded that handset was handed over to opposite party No. 2 on 11-06-2019 in totally dead condition. The opposite party No. 2 issued Job Sheet dated 11-06-2019 and retained the handset for inspection. On checking by service engineer, mobile hand set was found damaged due to 'liquid logging'. The estimate of repair was given to complainant, but complainant refused to get it repaired on chargeable basis. Accordingly opposite party No. 2 asked complainant to take back his handset, but complainant refused to take it back. Now complainant for the reason best known to him has filed this complaint alleging totally false facts. There is no deficiency in service or breach of contract on the part of opposite party No. 2. It has been further pleaded that on 11-06-2019 when the handset was submitted with OP No.2, on internal inspection it was found that handset was liquid logged from charging jack side, due to which few components were burnt inside the handset, which shows the negligence of the complainant in using the handset. The further preliminary objections are that the complainant has not come before Commission with clean hands as mobile handset has been mishandled by him. The fact regarding mishandling of the handset, leading to liquid logging has been concealed by him. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irrepairable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of independent expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. The complainant has sought replacement of mobile or refund of price which is not permissible under the Law. The replacement or refund is only permissible where defect developed during warranty period is of such a nature that cannnot be cured or repaired. The opposite party No. 1 is not responsible for any defect developed after lapse of warranty or defect due to physical mishandling and liquid logging. There is no inherent manufacturing defect in the handset. The opposite party No. 1 or its service centre has never denied after sales services to the complainant. They are still ready to provide service to complainant on chargeable basis as warranty is void due to liquid logging. The complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention to extract money by dragging opposite party No. 1 in unwanted litigation. That the reliefs sought by the complainant in the present complaint are beyond the agreed terms and conditions of warranty and also outside the ambit of Act. It is also pleaded that opposite party No. 1 is a renowned company in electronic products and home appliances and is manufacturing electronic products for the past several years. The technology used by the company in manufacturing the world class electronic products is highly sophisticated. Thus no question of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 arises. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 denied that one year guarantee was provided on the handset. It is pleaded that there is one year warranty subject to warranty terms and conditions as mentioned in warranty card supplied with the product. The opposite party No. 1 admitted that handset in question is of best quality. There is no complaint regarding quality of mobile handset and that the best service is provided in case of any problem in the functioning of the mobile in question. It is also denied that mobile in question did not prove to be of good quality. It is also denied that handset started creating problem in functioning from very beginning and display of the handset was not working properly or complainant took the mobile to opposite party No. 2 in last week of May, 2019. It is further denied that opposite party No. 2 after checking the handset provided the formal service or assured the complainant that there is no problem in the handset. It is stated to be matter of record that complainant submitted his handset with opposite party No. 2 on 11-06-2019 in a totally 'Dead' condition. It is denied that opposite party No. 2 asked complainant to enquire about his handset after a week. It is pleaded that opposite party No. 2 on internal inspection of the handset found it to be damaged due to liquid logging, which is a warranty void condition. The complainant was informed about the same and estimate of repair was given but complainant refused to get his handset repaired on chargeable basis. It is also denied complainant continued visiting the office of opposite party No.2 time and again or the handset could not be repaired. In further reply, the opposite party No. 1 has reiterated its version as pleaded in preliminary objections and detailed. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his version, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 9-7-2019 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of bill (Ex. C-2) and photocopy of service request (Ex. C-3). To rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No. 1 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 20-8-2019 of Anup Kumar Mathur, Director (Ex. OP-1/1), photographs (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of warranty card (Ex. OP-1/6), affidavit dated 20-8-2019 of Sachin, Service Engineer/Manager (Ex. OP-1/7) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. The complainant has pleaded that display of the mobile hand set was not working properly. In the last week of May, 2019, he visited opposite party No. 2 and after providing formal service by opposite party No. 2, mobile hand set was returned to him with the assurance that there will be no problem but thereafter mobile hand set used to switch off and on automatically. On 11-6-2019, mobile hand set switched off automatically and thereafter did not turn on and since that date, mobile hand set is lying with opposite party No. 2. The pleading of opposite party No. 1 is that on checking by service engineer, mobile hand set in question was found damaged due to 'liquid logging'. The complainant himself is negligent in using his handset as it has been found damaged internally due to liquid logging which is a warranty void condition. The estimate of repair was given to complainant, but he refused to get it repaired on chargeable basis. Accordingly opposite party No. 2 asked complainant to take back his handset, but complainant refused to take back his handset. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased online mobile handset in question manufactured by opposite party No.1 vide invoice (Ex . C-2). He submitted the mobile handset to opposite party No. 2 on 11-6-2019 and till date, the mobile hand set was not returned to him duly repaired. This fact is evident from Job Sheet (Ex. C-3) which also proves that that mobile in question was handed over to opposite party No. 2 on 11-6-2019 in dead condition and on that date it was under Full Warranty. Therefore, it stands proved that mobile in question became defective i.e. dead within the warranty period. There is no expert evidence on file to prove that defect occurred in the mobile hand set due to water logging. However, opposite party No. 1 has produced on file one affidavit of Sachin, Service Engineer/Manager (Ex, OP-1/7) who has opined that handset was liquid logged from charging jackside and few components were burnt inside the handset due to liquid logging, but the said Service Engineer has not attached any certificate/diploma with his affidavit to prove his qualification as technical expert nor explained which specific components were burnt. Further Ex. OP-1/7 do not find mention that what could be the reason of entry of water in mobile through charging jack. Otherwise also, it is not the case of the opposite party No. 1 that the mobile hand set was in bad condition due to mishandling, if any. The photographs (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/5) do not reveal that the same belong to mobile hand set of complainant. In such circumstances, the contention of opposite party No.1 that this fault is due to mishandling/water logging is not sustainable. The opposite party No. 2 did not appear before this commission to contest the case even after receipt of notice on 22-7-2019. The conduct of opposite party No. 2 is material. The opposite party No. 2 neither repaired the mobile nor returned the same to complainant or even intimated the complainant regarding further course of action, if any. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not returning the mobile hand set to complainant in perfectly working condition which became defective on 11-6-2019 under warranty period whereas the opposite parties were duty bound to set it right within reasonable time. The complainant is deprived of using his mobile hand set for more than two years without any fault on his part. Therefore, complainant is entitled to get the mobile hand set repaired without any payment alongwith some amount of compensation for his sufferings. Resultantly, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation against both the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile hand set in question of complainant without charging anything and hand over the same to him free from any defect, It is further made clear that original warranty/guarantee shall stand extended for the remaining period from the date of delivery of duly repaired mobile handset to complainant i.e after excluding period from the month of June 2019 till date of repair. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 30-09-2021 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Shivdev Singh)
Member | |
