DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.307 of 15

                                       DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 09-11.2015

                                                               DATE OF ORDER: 07-11-2016

Vinod Parmar aged 28 years son of Shri Om Parkash Parmar, resident of Rajan Paana, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani.

              ……………Complainant.

VERSUS                     

1. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited 2, 3, 4 Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tank, Square, Old Golf Road, Sector 43A Gurgaon through General Manager.

1. Sunny Crockery & Gift Shop, 51 Adrash College MarketA Hansi Gate, Bhiwani through Proprietor.

1. Samsung Mobile Service Centre, Shop No. 1, First Floor, Ganpatrai Hospital K Upar, Ghanta Ghar, Bhiwani.

………….. Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -      Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

Mrs. Sudesh, Member.

Present:-   Complainant in person.

      Sh. R.N. Rohilla, Advocate for OP no. 1.

      Ops no. 2 & 3 exparte.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                        In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased one hand set of Samsung Company Model No. Galaxy E-7 on 09.03.2015 vide bill Annexure C-1 and it was working perfectly but it became out of order on 09.10.2015 and he taken it OP no. 3, who thrown his mobile handset and it was broken. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment. Hence the complainant was deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss.  Now the complainant has claimed the cost of the mobile alongwith interest and costs by way of filing present complaint.

2.                     Opposite party no. 1 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent as a matter of policy issues prompt after sales service in warranty period provided no outside interference/repair has been done to the Handset/TV/Refrigerator and the same was not mishandled but no such service was issued by the respondents since outside interference/repair was evidence from the product thereby braking the terms of the warranty provided. It is submitted that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                     OP no. 2 & 3 have failed to come present.  Hence they were  proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.01.2016.

4.                     In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Annexure CW1/A & CW2/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3 alongwith supporting affidavit.

5.                     In reply thereto, the counsel for OP no. 1 has tendered into evidence document Annexure R-1. 

6.                     We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the complainant and counsel for the OP no. 1.

7.                     The complainant in person reiterated the contents of the complaint.  He submitted that he had purchased the mobile handset in question on 09.03.2015 vide bill Annexure C-1 and it was working perfectly but it became out of order on 09.10.2015 and he taken it OP no. 3, who thrown his mobile handset and it was broken.

8.                    The counsel for OP no. 1 reiterated the contents of the reply.  He refuted the allegations of the complainant.  He submitted that the complainant never visited OP no. 3 as alleged, if he had visited OP no. 3 the service centre of the company then the job sheet must have been issued to him.  No job sheet has been produced by the complainant in support of his contention.  He further submitted that one year warranty for the mobile handset in question has become void as the mobile handset is in damaged condition. He submitted that warranty means the repair of the mobile handset and not the replacement.    

9.                     In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the material on record.  The complainant has produced the bill of the mobile handset is Annexure C-1 and copy of legal notice as Annexure C-2 and copy of Postal receipt as Annexure C-3.  On the other side, the complainant has produced the warranty card having terms and conditions for which warranty as Annexure R-1.  Admittedly, the mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant on 09.03.2015 and it worked about 6 months without any fault.  It means no manufacturing defect can be attributed to the handset.  Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to repair the mobile handset of the complainant.  The complainant is directed to deliver his mobile handset to the service centre of the company for repair and the Ops are directed to repair the mobile handset of the complainant within 30 days from the date of delivery of the mobile handset to service centre.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:07-11-2016.     

                                                                                                  (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                                       President,            

                                                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                         Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                        (Anamika Gupta)           (Sudesh)

                            Member                     Member