DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Jal Singh son of Sh. Ishwar Singh, resident of House No.1577, Village Burail (Sector 45), Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Samsung India Electronics, 602, Vishal Bhawan-95, Nehru Place, New Delhi

2.                 City Portraits & Colour Lab, SCO No.1012-1013, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

3.                 Samsung Service Care Centre, Sparkle Bay Shop No.382, Sector
44-D, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Varinder Arora, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OP No.1

                        OPs No.2 & 3 already exparte. 

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Jal Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

i)                   To refund Rs.16,200/- being the cost of the mobile set.

ii)                To pay Rs.5,000/- on account of misc. expenses.

iii)              To pay Rs.20,000/- on account of harassment and agony.

iv)              To pay interest @ 12% per annum.

v)                 Any other relief. 

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 8.9.2011 he purchased a Samsung (Wave S 8530) mobile from opposite party No.2 for Rs.16,200/- vide bill (C-1). 

                   According to the complainant, soon after purchase, the mobile set started giving problems of auto charging, getting off while charging and while on call.  The complainant approached opposite party No.2.  The complainant was advised to approach opposite party No.3 i.e. the service centre. However, despite several visits, opposite party No.3 failed to remove the defects.  In June 2012, opposite party No.2 told the complainant that the mother board is required to be changed  for which he has to pay Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/-.  The complainant requested either to repair the set free of cost or to replace the same as the mobile was within warranty, but opposite party No.2 flatly refused.  Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.7.2012 but to no avail. 

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           In its written statement opposite party No.1 has admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question.  It has been averred that the mobile set was brought for repair on 25.11.2011 and the same was repaired as per warranty.   Thereafter the mobile set was not brought till May 2012 when the charger jack was found to be tampered with/broken.  It has been averred that when the set was brought for repair in June 2012, it was refused to be repaired within warranty as on account of ingress of water, the connecting leads at the charging point had rusted away.  It has further been averred that the instrument had been exposed to water and the same was not repairable. It has further been averred that to put the mobile set in working order, it was necessary to replace the board and the same was chargeable, being not covered under warranty, which fact was also informed to the complainant.  The remaining averments have been denied being wrong.

                   Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                           Notice sent for the service of opposite party No.2 was duly served.  None appeared on its behalf on the date fixed.  Therefore, vide order dated 5.11.2012, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.

5.                           Notice sent for the service of opposite party No.3 was received back with the report of refusal.  Neither the proprietor nor any authorised agent appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3 on the date fixed.  Therefore, vide order dated 5.11.2012, it was also proceeded against exparte. 

6.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.

7.                           Admittedly the complainant purchased the mobile handset in question vide invoice (C-1) for Rs.16,200/- from opposite party No.2.  According to the complainant, soon after purchase, the mobile set started giving problems of auto charging and getting off while charging as well as while on call.  However, despite repeated visits, the defect could not be removed.    The case of the complainant is that in the month of June 2012, opposite party No.2  told him that the motherboard needed to be changed at a cost of Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/- although the mobile was within warranty.

8.                           On the other hand, the case of the opposite party is that the mobile set was refused to be repaired, within warranty, because due to ingress of water, the connecting leads at the charging point had rusted away.  It has been argued that the instrument had been exposed to water and the same was not repairable, free of cost, within the warranty terms.

9.                           Annexure C-2 is the copy of the job sheet dated 8.6.2012 vide which the complainant gave the mobile set for repair to opposite party No.3.  There is no mention in it of water ingress in the mobile set.  Even the box ‘Liquid logged’ has not been tick (√) marked at the relevant place in the job sheet (C-2).  Now if the stand of the opposite party is that the mobile set became faulty due to ingress of water, it was for them to have proved the same by way of some documentary evidence.  However, they have failed to do so.  Even the affidavit of the person who checked the mobile set, and found ingress of water in the same, has not been placed on record.  Therefore, mere bald assertions made in the written statement, without any cogent evidence in support thereof, would be of no help to the case of the opposite party.  In such circumstances the non repair of the mobile set in question, within the warranty period certainly, amounts to deficiency in service.

10.                       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

i)                   to repair the mobile set forthwith to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging anything;

ii)                to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

iii)              to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

11.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

12.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

26.2.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER