Delhi

East Delhi

CC/76/2016

JITENDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

11 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 76/16

 

Shri Jitender Asija @ Jitu

27/90, Jwala Nagar Chowk

Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032

Also at:

07, Old Anarkali

Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51                                              ….Complainant

Vs.    

1. ATS Arora Telecom Services

519/3-B, Gali No. 2

Near Reliance Fresh

Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara

Delhi – 110 032

 

2. M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th Floor, Tower-C

Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43

Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-122 002

Haryana (India)

Through its Managing Director                                         …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 12.02.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 11.09.2018

Judgement Passed on: 12.09.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Jitender Asija @ Jitu against ATS Arora Telecom Services, retailer (OP-1) and M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., manufacturer (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant purchased a Samsung A5 mobile, Pearl white bearing IMEI no, 356320062275336 and 356321062275334 from ATS Arora Telecom Services (OP-1) vide invoice no. 1429/15 dated 11.02.2015 for an amount of Rs. 23,850/-.  He paid an amount of Rs. 2,385/- vide invoice no. IC/14/10282 for two years warranty against liquid and physical damage and one year service warranty for which warranty card was issued by OP-1. 

            It was stated that on 01.02.2016, the phone slipped from the hand of the complainant and was damaged physically.  The complainant visited the office of OP-1 for repair/exchange of the phone, but OP-1 clearly refused for the same, however, the complainant had paid Rs. 2,385/- for two years warranty against liquid and physical damage. 

            The complainant visited Maa Vaishnavi Eservice Pvt. Ltd., authorized service centre of M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) for repair of the mobile phone.  Engineers of the service centre gave repair estimate of Rs. 15,152/- and charged Rs. 170/- for which they did not issue any receipt. 

            It was further stated that due to the fault of OP-1, the complainant suffered heavy loss by wasting valuable time and business loss as the complainant’s business was fully depended upon the mobile.  Hence, he has prayed for directions to OP to replace the mobile with a new one or refund the amount of Rs. 26,450/- (Rs. 23,850 + 2,385 + 170); Rs. 50,000/- compensation and Rs. 21,000/- towards litigation charges.    

             The complainant has annexed copy of invoice, copy of warranty card and copy of estimate alongwith complaint.

3. , they have stated that paragraph 7 of Samsung Mobile warranty clearly states that:

            “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 chargeable basis only.”

It was submitted that the warranty did not cover the physical damage to the product caused by the action of the complainant and any repair to be done will be on chargeable basis and subject to availability of spare parts.

It was also submitted that OP-1 was not the authorized agent/dealer of OP-2.Other facts have also been denied, thus, praying for dismissal of complaint with cost.

Warranty terms and conditions have been annexed with their reply.

M/s. ATS Arora Telecom Services (OP-1) did not put the appearance inspite of service of notice; hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP-2 was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of her complaint. 

5.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.

            In defence, OP have examined Anindya Bose, Authorized Representative of OP-2, who has deposed on oath.  They have also narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement. 

6.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-2 and have perused the material placed on record.  The present complaint pertains to the grievance of the complainant that he was asked to pay for repairs, despite his handset being under warranty.  If we look at the insurance plan which bears dealer stamp of OP-1 and the receipt bears “i-care” and web address as “www.icaremanpreet.com”.  Thus, it makes clear that the protection plan / care pack was sold by OP-1. 

            As per terms and conditions of the Care Plan, the complainant was to inform at the helpline number of “i-care”.  It is not so in the present case.  Complainant has nowhere avered that he had informed “i-care” and have not even impleaded them as a party.

            As far as OP-2, the manufacturer is concerned, they have discharged the onus by placing on record the warranty terms and conditions; Clause 18 of which reads:

“Defects arising out of the following are not covered under warranty:

• Mishandling / Misuse
• Improper ventilation
• Improper voltage
• Use of external material
• Physical damage and/or electrical damage caused by physical impact”

            It is an admitted case of the complainant that there was physical damage in the handset, thus, it rendered the handset out of warranty.  Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on part of OP-2 as they had given estimate of repairs and complainant could get the same done subject to payment of charges. 

            Thus, from reasons discussed above, the present complaint is dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.    

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

        President