Haryana

Kurukshetra

226/2017

Vivek - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Feb 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.226 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 24.10.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:11.02.2019.

Vivek Vashishth son of Chander Prakash Vashishth, R/o House No.1144, Street No.11, Kheri Markanda, Kurukshetra-136118.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, having its registered office at A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director Mr. Hyun Chil Hong.
2. M/s. Bansal Communication, near Pipli Geeta Dwar, Pipli, Distt. Kurukshetra (Haryana), Authorized Service Centre of M/s. Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager Miss Rekha.
3. M/s. Bansal Communication, near Pipli Geeta Dwar, Pipli, Distt. Kurukshetra (Haryana), Authorized Service Centre of M/s. Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. through its Owner Mr. Deepak Bansal.

….Respondents.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.   

                Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Vivek Vashishth against Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd. and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile set Model Samsung Galaxy A7 for a sum of Rs.26,900/- from the Op No.1 vide invoice No.321 dt. 16.08.2016.  It is alleged that after passing of seven months, the mobile set of complainant started to give problems in respect of battery back up and on 14.08.2017, the complainant was facing three problems in his mobile set i.e. when the battery percentage come at 15% or less, it automatically went on switched off mode, screen/display off at the time of dialing the mobile numbers and problem in palm gesture method i.e. screen shot by using of palm/hand not working.  On 15.08.2017 he went to the office of Ops No.2 & 3 but office of Ops No.2 & 3 was closed due to National Holiday.  He again went to the office of Ops on 16.08.2017 and he deposited his mobile set in the office of Op No.3.  It is further alleged that despite repair, the defects were not removed from the said mobile set and the same problems were existing in the device.  It is further alleged that the complainant again approached the Ops No.2 & 3 but the employees of Ops No.2 & 3 told that the warranty period has already been expired on 23.08.2017.  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 mobile set with the new one or to refund the amount of mobile set and further to pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

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; jurisdiction; that the complainant in regards to his complaint has approached the service-centre of answering Ops on 16.08.2017 i.e. after the expiry of one year from the date of purchase of the said unit and reported switch problem in his unit; that the unit was working fine and there was no problem in the unit till one year from the date of purchase of the unit i.e. till 16.08.2017 and on that occasion, the engineer of the answering Ops checked the unit in the presence of complainant and resolved the issue by replacement of PBA TAPE & BATTERY of the unit and the complainant took the delivery of unit to his full satisfaction.  After that the complainant never reported any issue and now without any cause of action has filed the present complaint.  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.             Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits, Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, Ex.CW3/A, Ex.CW4/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

 7.            The complainant contended that he has purchased the mobile set in question on 16.08.2016 in the name of his mother with a warranty of one year from the Ops.  He is user of the mobile set in question, so, he is consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant again contended that after passing of seven months of its purchase, the mobile set of complainant was not working properly.  On 14.08.2017, the complainant was facing three problems (as mentioned above) in his mobile set.  On 15.08.2017 he went to the office of Ops No.2 & 3 but office of Ops No.2 & 3 was closed due to National Holiday.  He again went to the office of Ops on 16.08.2017 and he deposited his mobile set in the office of Op No.3.  After repair, the Op No.3 handed over the mobile set to the complainant on 23.08.2017.  After replacement of battery and PBA tape, the complainant received information on toll free number that there is a three months extended warranty on changing of the parts.  On 26.08.2017 his mobile set was again not working properly.  He went to the office of Ops many times but the Ops did not pay any heed to his complaint.  The complainant prayed that his complaint may please be allowed.  The complainant placed reliance upon the order dt. 28.05.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh in case titled as Proprietor M/s. Jaishree Novelties Vs. Proprietor M/s. Priya Pvt. Ltd. bearing appeal No.FA/13/105. 

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops contended that the complainant has approached to their service-centre on 16.08.2017 after expiry of one year warranty.  The second point raised by the Ops is that after replacement of PBA tape and battery, the mobile set of complainant was handed over to the complainant with fully satisfaction of the complainant.  The counsel of Ops again contended that they are still ready to repair the unit in question.  There is no deficiency in service on their part.

9.             From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on appraisal of rival submissions of both the parties, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to get repaired the mobile set in question from the Ops free of cost.  Thus, in view of above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and we direct the OPs to repair the mobile set of the complainant free of cost.  The authority submitted by the complainant is not disputed but the same is not applicable to the facts of instant case.  The order be complied with 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.  All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.    

Announced in open court:

Dt.:11.02.2019.

  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.