Haryana

Kurukshetra

80/2018

Sanjeev Singhla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Singhal

27 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.80 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 11.04.2018.

                                                     Date of decision: 27.07.2018.

Sanjeev Singla son of Shri Ashok Kumar, resident of Village and Post Office Umri, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-44 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director C/o Samsung Authorized Service Centre, Geeta Dwar Pipli, District Kurukshetra.
2. M/s. Bansal Communication, Geeta Dwar, Pipli, District Kurukshetra through its proprietor Shri Deepak Bansal. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. R.K.Singhal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sanjeev Singla against Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a new mobile set Samsung Note 8 N 950 bearing IMEI No.352016090784422 for a sum of Rs.67,900/- vide bill No.4641 dt. 04.02.2018.  It is alleged that on 25.03.2018, a sudden blast and vibration had taken place in the mobile set and its screen got cracked and due to blast and vibration, it fell down from the hand of complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.2 regarding its repair but the Op No.2 demanded a sum of Rs.17,200/- for its repair despite the fact that the said mobile set was within warranty period.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the defective mobile set with the new one of the same model or to refund the amount of Rs.67,900/- alongwith interest and further to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony or any other relief which this Forum may deems fit.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the answering Op i.e. Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. is a renowned company in Electronic Products and Commodities and is manufacturing electronic products for the past several years; that the complainant for the first and last time in regards to complaint regarding the unit in question approached the company on 26.03.2018 and the engineer of the service-centre checked the unit and found that the display of the alleged unit is damaged due to mishandling/negligence on the part of complainant and an estimate of repair was provided to the complainant but the complainant become adamant not to pay the charges of repair and started demanding free of cost repair/replacement for his unit; that the Op company is always ready to provide services to the complainant as per conditions of warranty i.e. paid repair, so, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             The complainant tendered affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 in evidence and thereafter closed the evidence. 

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 04.02.2018 for the sale consideration of Rs.67,900/-.  From the job-sheet dt. 26.03.2018, it is clear that the said mobile set became defective within the warranty period.  The complainant has supported his versions by filing his affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of cash memo, Ex.C1 and copy of job-sheet, Ex.C2.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it repaired from the Ops.

7.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OPs to repair the hand set of the complainant free of cost.  The order; be complied within a period of 30 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.   File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:27.07.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

(Anamika Gupta)             

                                        Member