DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.174 of 29-04-2013
Decided on 14-08-2013
Sadhu Singh Patwari aged about 50 years S/o Gurdial Singh R/o St.No.8, near Bansal Flour Mills, New Shaheed Bhagat Singh Colony, Rampura Phul, Distt. 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 CEO.
2.Shri Neelkanth Communication, Lehra Bazar, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, Pin-151103, through its proprietor.
3.Suresh Telecom (Samsung Customer Care), near Arya School, Rampura Phul, Distt. Bathinda, through its proprietor.
4.Shri Ram Tele Services, SCF 62, 1st floor, near Hotel Amsun Pride, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001, through its proprietor.
.......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.K.S Sidhu, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Kuljit Pal Sharma, counsel for opposite party Nos.1&4.
Opposite party Nos.2&3 already 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'). In the instant complaint the complainant has purchased one mobile handset make Samsung GT 57500 Galaxy Ace Plus bearing IMEI No.358866043291428 from the opposite party No.2, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 for Rs.15,500/- paid in cash vide bill No.865 dated 30.6.2012 with one year warranty. The daughter of the complainant started using the said mobile handset but in the month of August 2012 it started creating problems in its service as it used to hang while using it i.e. to attend a call or making a call. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2, it asked him to lodge the complaint on the customer care No.41375-57246 of the opposite party No.1, based at Patiala. Accordingly, the complainant lodged the complaint to the customer care on the given number and they assured him that they would take appropriate action in the matter very soon but nothing has been done. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, it asked him to lodge the complaint on the customer care No.41416-46240 of the opposite party No.1, based at Bathinda. Accordingly, the complainant again lodged the complaint on the given number on 10.11.2012 and they assured him that they would take immediate action in the matter but nothing has been done. Thereafter, on 8.2.2013 the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, it retained the said mobile handset and asked him to visit it after a week and accordingly he approached the opposite party No.2, it conveyed him that it had sent the said mobile handset to the opposite party No.3, the motherboard has been changed and there would be no problem in it in future. But despite repair, the said mobile handset continued to have snag. Thereafter the complainant again approached the opposite party No.4 with the defective mobile handset on 9.4.2013 and it changed its battery vide token No.5556 and assured that now the said mobile handset is defect free but it was continuously giving the same problem. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties either to replace the said mobile handset with new one or to refund the amount of the said mobile handset or to give any additional relief alongwith cost and compensation.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party Nos.1 & 4 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that their obligation under the warranty is to set right the mobile handset by repairing or replacing the defective parts. The performance of the said mobile handset depends upon the handling of the product. The unauthorized, incompatible downloading of various applications and virus threat from internet usage hampers the performance of the said mobile handset. The said mobile handset has been mishandled and might have fallen while using the same by the complainant or his family members. The complainant has purchased the said mobile handset on 30.6.2012 and approached the opposite party No.4 on 9.4.2013 i.e. after 10 months of its purchase. No assurance to replace the said mobile handset is given by the opposite party Nos.1 & 4 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 Nos.1 & 4 only once and the problem was duly rectified. The mobile handset in question was delivered back in the satisfactory condition. As per the information of the opposite party Nos.1 & 4 the said mobile handset is fully operational and there is no alleged problem. As a goodwill gesture, the opposite party Nos.1 & 4 are 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 an expert or any qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of his allegations. The opposite party Nos.1 & 4 denied all the averments of the complainant mentioned in the complaint.
3. The opposite party Nos.2 & 3 despite service of summons have failed to appear before this Forum. Hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party Nos.2 & 3.
4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased one mobile handset make Samsung GT 57500 Galaxy Ace Plus bearing IMEI No.358866043291428 from the opposite party No.2, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 for Rs.15,500/- vide bill No.865 dated 30.6.2012 with one year warranty.
7. The complainant submitted that the mobile handset so purchased by him was being used by his daughter, in the month of August 2012 it started giving problems in its service as it used to hang while using it to attend a call or making a call. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2, it asked him to lodge the complaint on the customer care No.41375-57246 of the opposite party No.1, based at Patiala. Accordingly, the complainant lodged the complaint to the customer care on the given number but his complaint was not attended to, he again approached the opposite party No.2, it asked him to lodge the complaint on the customer care No.41416-46240 of the opposite party No.1, based at Bathinda. The complainant lodged the complaint on the given number on 10.11.2012 but nothing has been done. Thereafter, on 8.2.2013 the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, it retained the said mobile handset and asked him to visit it after a week, the motherboard of the mobile handset in question has been changed but the problem persist in it. The complainant approached the opposite party No.4 with the defective mobile handset on 9.4.2013 and it changed its battery vide token No.5556 and assured that the said mobile handset is free from any defect but the problems were not rectified.
8. The opposite party Nos.1 and 4 submitted that the problem in the said mobile handset may be due to unauthorized, incompatible downloading of various applications and virus threat from the internet. The said mobile handset has been mishandled and might have fallen while using the same by the complainant or his family members. The complainant lodged the complaint to the opposite party No.4 on 9.4.2013 i.e. after 10 months of its purchase. The liability of the opposite party Nos.1 & 4 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 assurance to replace the said mobile handset was given by the opposite party Nos.1 & 4 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 Nos.1 & 4 only once and the said problem was duly rectified. The mobile handset in question was delivered back in the satisfactory condition. 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 to this effect. The opposite party Nos.1 & 4 are still ready to rectify the problems in the said mobile handset, if there are any.
9. A perusal of documents placed on file Ex.C2 shows that the mobile handset was purchased by the complainant vide bill No.865 dated 30.6.2012. As per the version of the complainant, the defects for the first time occurred in the said mobile handset in the month of August 2012 and the complainant lodged the complaint on the customer care No.41375-57246 of the opposite party No.1 but his complaint was not attended to by it. The complainant again lodged the complaint on the customer care No.41416-46240 on 10.11.2012 but again the said mobile handset was not rectified. Thereafter, on 8.2.2013 the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, it retained the said mobile handset and asked him to visit it after a week and accordingly the complainant approached the opposite party No.2, it told him that it had sent the said mobile handset to the opposite party No.3 and its motherboard has been changed and also assured that in future there would be no problem in the said mobile handset but again on 9.4.2013 it again became defective and the opposite party No.4 vide token No.5556 changed its battery but the problem remained the same. The opposite party Nos.1 and 4 denied all the allegations of the complainant mentioned in the complaint except replacing of the motherboard. The opposite party No.4 has placed on file job sheet dated 10.11.2012 Ex.OP4/1, in this job sheet defect description is shown as 'Not charging' and repair description is shown as 'Charger jack replaced'. In job sheet dated 8.2.2013 Ex.OP4/2, the defect description is shown as 'Call auto disconnect, restart, auto off' and the repair description is shown as 'PBA replaced'. The opposite party No.4 itself placed on file in its evidence Ex.OP4/1 and Ex.OP4/2 and has mentioned that these defects are due to the mishandling on the part of the complainant and due to unauthorized, incompatible downloading of various applications and virus threat from the internet usage hampers the performance of the said mobile handset but has failed to prove this plea with any cogent and convincing evidence. The replacement of the Jack and PBA (motherboard) is sufficient to prove that the said mobile handset has suffered major problem that is inherent in nature, beyond repair and the opposite party Nos.1,3 and 4 in order to shed their liability have not redressed to the grievances of the complainant. Despite repeated repairs, the opposite party Nos.1,3 and 4 failed to rectify the problems reported in the said mobile handset.
10. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1,3 and 4. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.1,3 and 4 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.2. The opposite party Nos.1,3 and 4 are directed to replace the said mobile handset with new one with the same specification and model with fresh warranty, in case the same model with the same specification is not available with the opposite party Nos.1,3 and 4, the amount of Rs.15,500/- be refunded to the complainant.
11. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
12. In case of non-compliance the interest @ 9% per annum will yield on the amount of Rs.15,500/- till realization.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in the open Forum
14-08-2013
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
