BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.159 of 2017.
Date of Instt.:11.07.2017.
Date of Decision: 15.01.2018.
Bhajan Lal son of Sh.Birbal resident of village Dharnia, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
...Complainant
Versus
1.Samsung Service Centre, Near Guru Nanak Kitab Ghar, Char Marla Colony, Fatehabad through its Prop.
2.Samsung Mobiles, 2nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurugram (Haryana) 122002, through its Managing Director.
..Opposite Parties.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh.Parshant Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. In brief, the facts of the present case are that the complainant had purchased a mobile handset make Samsung for an amount of Rs.9700/- on 15.08.2016 from M/s.Deep Mobiles, Bhattu Mandi and the mobile was having a warranty of one year. It is further submitted that after a few weeks problems crept in the said mobile i.e. in the display of the mobile and the signal reception strength became poor and on account of the same the problem of hanging became regular. Therefore the complainant deposited the said mobile with Op No.1 and a job-sheet was issued by him. After a few weeks the Op No.1 handed over the repaired mobile to the complainant. Thereafter, in the month of June, 2017 the said mobile again started creating problems i.e. display of the mobile was not working properly and the battery of the mobile started draining very early. So the complainant visited the office of Op No.1 and after checking the said mobile, OP No.1 denied to repair the handset free of cost and demanded money for repairing the handset. It was also intimated by the Op No.1 that the display of the handset was broken from inside, therefore the cost of the repair was to be charged from the complainant. It is further submitted that the display of the mobile was broken from inside and as such the said defect was a manufacturing defect. However the OPs totally denied for replacing or repairing the handset. The above said act amounts to deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled for refund of the full amount of the mobile along-with compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental, physical and financial harassment suffered by him. Hence, the present complaint.
3. On being served, OPs appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a joint written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to territorial jurisdiction, maintainability, cause of action, non-joinder of necessary party and concealment of correct and material facts etc; have been raised.
4. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant approached the OPs on 14.10.2016 vide complaint No.4223436021 and reported display issue in his unit. The engineer of the Service Centre of the OPs thoroughly checked the unit in presence of complainant and found that the display of the unit of complainant was damaged on account of mishandling on the part of complainant. The complainant was intimated that since it is a case of physical damage as such the same is not covered under the warranty. The complainant agreed upon the same and the unit was repaired as per conditions of the warranty and the complainant took the delivery of the unit to his full satisfaction. Thereafter the complainant never reported any issue and without any cause of action directly filed the present complaint.
5. It is also further submitted that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant without any expert opinion to prove that the unit is not working properly and merely by oral assertion of the complainant it cannot be ascertained that the unit is not working properly. The compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act has not been made by the complainant. The OPs controverted all the allegations made in the complaint and has further prayed for dismissal of the same being without any merit.
6. The complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A along-with document Ex.A1 in evidence in support of his case. On the other hand Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager, filed an affidavit as Ex.RW1/A on behalf of OPs. The OPs also tendered in evidence document as Annexure R1 and closed the evidence.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments reiterated the averments made in the complaint and further contended that fault crept in the mobile during the warranty period. However the mobile was neither repaired nor replaced by the OPs. Thus the OPs have violated the terms and conditions of warranty and the same amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant. On the other hand the counsel for the OPs vehemently contended that the complainant never approached the OPs or any of their service centre regarding complaint in his mobile. Therefore the question of repair or replacement of mobile by the OPs does not arise and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the entire material placed on the record of the present case. It is the case of the complainant that faults crept in the mobile purchased by the complainant from the OPs during the warranty period. However the complainant failed to produce any cogent, convincing or credible evidence to prove the above said contention. No document or expert opinion has been produced by the complainant to prove any defect or manufacturing defect in the handset. In absence of any evidentry proof it cannot be established that a fault crept in the mobile during the warranty period. Oral assertion in absence of any documentary proof cannot be relied upon. It is also the case of the complainant that he approached to the OPs for rectification of the fault in the mobile in question. However, no job-sheet or other document has been produced by the complainant to prove that he approached to the OPs or there approved service centre for repair of the mobile. Therefore the OPs cannot be held liable for not repairing or replacing the mobile in question of the complainant.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in rendering service to him. Resultantly, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost as provided in the rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum:
Dt.15.01.2018.
(Ansuya Bishnoi) (R.S.Panghal) (Raghbir Singh)
Member Member President
DCDRF, Fatehabad.
