Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/554

Neeraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung Plaza - Opp.Party(s)

Dewan Verma

14 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

 

  CC No: 554 of 12.08.2014

                                                                     Date of Decision: 14.01.2015

 

Neeraj S/o Ajay Kumar, resident of Verma Electrical Bhargo Road, Dhandari Khurad, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      … Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Samsung Plaza, C.N.Tower, Adjoining Preet Palace Cinema, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Authorized person.

2. Samsung Service Centre, Kiran Mobile Care, Address: Shop No.4-5, First Floor, Main Market, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Authorized Person.

3. Samsung Head Office: 2,3,4^th Floor Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122002, through its Manager/Authorized Person.

                                                                             … Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

 

Present:       Sh.Devan Verma, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate for OPs.  

                   

                        ORDER

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                The present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Neeraj S/o Ajay Kumar, resident of Verma Electrical Bhargo Road, Dhandari Khurad, Ludhiana (hereinafter to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Samsung Plaza, C.N.Tower, Adjoining Preet Palace Cinema, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Authorized person and others (hereinafter to be referred as ‘OPs’)-directing them to refund the price of the mobile phone worth Rs.7900/- alongwith interest and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased one mobile make Samsung Model no.S-7392, EMI no.RZ1D93TPK6M (358870051925802) from the OP1, vide bill no.1474 and the Ops assured that mobile is under the warranty of one year. But after some time the mobile phone started giving problem in its display and touch screen of the mobile and was not working smoothly. On 8.6.14, the complainant himself approached OP2 i.e. authorized service centre of Samsung Mobile and they submitted the handset of the complainant, vide job sheet no.4179013685 and assured the complainant that they will remove all the defects in the said phone, as the same is under warranty and further assured that they will rectify the problem within 48 working hours. But thereafter complainant made various visits to the service centre i.e. OP2 and requested to return the phone, which was given by the complainant against the job sheet, but the officials linger on the matter on one false pretext or the other. Thereafter complainant contacted OP3 and they assured the complainant that they will direct the OP2 regarding his complaint, but they failed to help the complainant in any manner. After the lapse of many days the OP2 failed to return the mobile phone of the complainant. The complainant approached the Ops many times, but the OP2 openly proclaimed that they have having high links and nobody dare to take any legal action against them. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is gross misuse of process of law. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and against the OPs to file the present complaint. There is no deficiency of service or breach of contract on the part of the OPs. The OPs or its service centre has never denied after sales services as duly admitted by the complainant in his complaint and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant but on chargeable basis as the complainant has committed breach of warranty conditions. Further submitted that the performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product, apart from installation and downloading of various mobile applications, games and other software. The alleged problem of touch not working as alleged in the complaint shows that handset has been mishandled by the complainant and there was no inherent defect in the handset. On inspection by service engineer, it was found that the hand-set has been tampered as touch of the handset is duplicate and set is liquid logged. Due to tampering of handset and liquid in the handset the same was not covered under warranty and repair was on chargeable basis. The estimate of repair was given to the customer by OP2, but complainant did not agree for the repair. Then service centre asked complainant to take back his handset. But complainant intentionally with ulterior motive left the handset with OP2 and now filed the present false complaint. Further submitted that the complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement of mobile phone with damages and litigation cost. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed by documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. In the absence of any expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed. On merits, denying all other allegations of the complaint OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In order to prove his case, Ld counsel for complainant has placed on record Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated, as narrated in the complaint and placed on record documents Ex.CW/1 and Ex.CW/2. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OPs has placed on record affidavit of Sh.Shriniwas Joshi, Senior Manager, Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, having branch office at C.N.Tower, First Floor, Adjoining Preet Palace, Ludhiana Ex.RA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and placed on record document Ex.R1.

5.                We have heard the Ld. counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record before us.

6.                Admittedly the complainant had purchased one mobile make Samsung Model no.S-7392, EMI no.RZ1D93TPK6M (358870051925802) from the OP1, vide bill no.1474 with the warranty of one year. It is proved fact that after some time, the mobile phone started giving problem in its display and touch screen of the mobile and was not working smoothly. On 8.6.14, the complainant himself approached OP2 i.e. authorized service centre of Samsung Mobile, who prepared job sheet no.4179013685 and assured the complainant that they will rectify the problem within 48 working hours. But thereafter complainant made various visits to the service centre i.e. OP2 and requested to return the phone. But they failed to return the mobile phone of the complainant, despite repeated requests of the complainant.

7.                During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the OPs has strongly contented that there is no deficiency in service on their part, as the OPs never denied after sales services and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant, but on chargeable basis, as the complainant had committed breach of warranty conditions. Ld. counsel for OPs has further contended that on inspection by service engineer it was found that the hand set has been tampered as touch of the handset is duplicate and set is liquid logged.

8.                The perusal of the evidence of the OPs reveals that they have furnished the affidavit of Sh.Shriniwas Joshi, Senior Manager, Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, who has deposed as per the defence plea taken in the written statement and has placed on record Customer details-cum-warranty card Ex.R1, but they have not placed on record any opinion of the alleged engineer, who found that the hand set was tampered as touch of the handset is duplicate and set is liquid logged. So, this plea appears to be devoid of any merit. Further more there is nothing on record from which, it can be presumed that copy of the condition of the warranty card Ex.R1 was ever dispatched to the complainant at the time of purchase of the mobile set and thereafter. However, it is proved fact that mobile set of the complainant was within the warranty period, when the same was suffered from the problems. Further it is proved fact that till date the mobile set of the complainant is lying with OP2 and same has not been duly repaired, as the mobile set was produced by the OPs for inspection of the complainant during the course of arguments, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.                Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and OPs are directed to carry out the necessary repair in the mobile set of the complainant, without any cost to the satisfaction of the complainant within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. In case, it is found that the said mobile set is not repairable, then OPs are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant without any cost or in the alternate to make refund of the amount of the mobile set, as per the invoice Ex.CW/1 placed on record i.e. Rs.7900/-. Further OPs are directed to pay Rs.1000/-(One thousand only) as compensation and litigation cost, compositely assessed to the complainant. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

                   (S.P.Garg)                                         (R.L.Ahuja)

                     Member                                             President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:14.01.2015 

Hardeep Singh