Delhi

East Delhi

CC/477/2015

HITLER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jan 2018

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.         477/2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                 08/07/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                08/01/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Order                         09/01/2018  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Hitlar Singh, adult   

s/o- Sh Surender Singh

R/o  A -125/2A, Gali no. 6  

Ashok Nagar, Delhi 110093…………..…………….……..…………………..….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s Samsung India Pvt Ltd.

F-26/3, Okhla Industrial Area

New Delhi 110020

 

2- M/s Maa Vaishnavi E Services Pvt Ltd.         

1, First Floor, New Rajdhani Enclave,    

Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092

 

3-Technoking Home Appliances

A-69, Hardev Puri,

100 Futa Road, Shadara Delhi 110032 …………………….………….……Opponents

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                   

Complainant purchased Samsung Core GT 8262 mobile having IMEI 352954062102589 from OP3/ Technoking Home Appliances for a sum of Rs 12,500/-on 13/07/2014 vide cash memo no. R-2181 (Ex CW1/1). The said mobile had one year standard warranty.

The said mobile developed auto off problem from 03/07/2015 so was taken to OP2 for rectifying the defects as per job sheet no. 4197119498 (Ex CW1/2). The said mobile was under warranty, but said mobile was returned on the same date with remark” Liquid Damage”.  

Complainant told OP2 that his mobile had only auto switch off problem and never had fallen or water touched to it, but OP2 did not agree and refused to give the services under warranty. Seeing uncooperative attitude of OP2 filed this complaint claiming proper repair of his mobile or to refund the cost of mobile Rs 12500/-with Rs 50,000/ compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs 11000/- litigation charges.

OP 1 filed written statement on behalf of OP2 also and admitted that the said mobile was purchased from OP3 and developed auto switch off problem after using without any defects or problem up to almost one year and complainant reported defect just 10 days prior to the expiry of standard warranty tenure, still his complaint was entertained. It was stated that after examination by the experts, his mobile had PBA liquid logged resulting in violation of warranty conditions as OP do not give service under such conditions. Under such condition, OP1 and OP2 could not extend services and his mobile was returned without repair.  

OP also took the reference of settled law in “Shivprasad Industries vs Senior Machinery Co.” (I) (2006) CPJ 92(NC) where it was laid down that ‘en equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if can be repaired’.

So, based on the citation (supra) it was prayed that this complaint may be dismissed.  

 

Complainant submitted his rejoinder and denied all the replies submitted by the OP as incorrect. Complainant submitted evidence by way of affidavit and affirmed himself on oath that all his facts and evidences were correct as per his complaint. He had further stated that his mobile was under warranty. 

OP also submitted their evidence on affidavit through their AR Mr Anindya Bose who deposed on affidavit that their company products were quality tested and had one year standard warranty for all products and never sold defective goods for customer. It was also stated that PBA liquid damages were out off warranty, so OP could not extend free services even if the mobile was under warranty. All labeled allegations were without any evidence, so it was prayed that the present complaint be dismissed. Arguments were heard from both the counsels. During arguments, OP’s counsel stated that they were ready to help the complainant what so ever it could be done, but refused to refund the cost as mobile had no defect for over eleven months of use. After perusing the file, order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was noticed that the said mobile had developed auto switch off problem at the end of warranty period and was checked by OP2 and found Liquid damage. Instead of removing the defect, the said mobile was returned. It is clear that liquid damage repair is not covered under warranty tenure, but could have repaired on the payment basis and spare part if found damaged, charges may have been taken though services were under warranty tenure.

 

So, after taking reference of citation submitted by OP (supra) “Shivprasad Industries vs Senior Machinery Co.” (I) (2006) CPJ 92(NC) where it was laid down that ‘en equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if can be repaired’, we have taken in to the consideration of law laid down in this citation.

So we direct OP2 to rectify the damage and if any spare part is required to be replaced, would be done so and cost of the spare part if not covered under warranty conditions; complainant shall pay the cost and if the said damaged part/s covered under warranty, OP2 shall not charge. The repair of the said mobile shall be done within 30 days from the receiving of this order and hand over the mobile to the complainant in working condition. There shall be no order to cost, but OP3 shall extend three months warranty through OP2 to the complainant at the time of handing over the repair mobile.   

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                            Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                               

                                                  Shri Sukhdev Singh, President