BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No. 158 of 2017.
Date of Instt.:11.07.2017.
Date of Decision: 15.01.2018.
Mukesh Kumar son of Ram Kumar, resident of D.C.Colony, 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 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 Model A-3 for an amount of Rs.9850/- on 28.07.2016 from a mobile shop in Fatehabad and the said mobile manufactured by the OP No.2 was having a one year warranty. It is further submitted that after a few weeks certain problems crept in the said mobile. The network problem, signal reception strength of the said mobile became poor and as a result disconnection and hanging problem became regular in the unit. Therefore the complainant deposited the said mobile with Op No.1 and a job-sheet was issued to him. After a few days the mobile was handed over to the complainant after repair.
3. It is further submitted that in the month of May, 2017 certain problems i.e. in display, early drains of the battery etc. crept in the mobile. So the complainant visited the office of Op No.1. However after checking the said mobile OP No.1 denied to repair the handset free of cost. The OP No.1 also disclosed that the display of the unit was broken from inside and the same will be repaired at the cost of the complainant. It is further submitted that the display of the mobile was broken from inside and the same amounts to manufacturing defect which occurred during the warranty period therefore it was the liability of the OPs to replace or repair the same. However the OPs totally declined to rectify the fault. 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.
4. 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.
5. On merits, it is submitted that the OPs have established a number of service centre across the country in order to provide after sale services to its customers. However the complainant did not approach to any of its service centres with regard to any complaint in the mobile handset. It is also further submitted that the OPs were and are still ready to repair the unit as per warranty policy. It is also 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 by oral assertion it cannot be ascertained as to whether the unit in question is having any fault or not. The OPs in the written statement controverted all the allegations made by the complaint and further prayed that the present complaint deserves dismissal being devoid of any merit.
6. The complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A along-with document Annexure A1 in evidence. On the other hand Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager, filed an affidavit as Annexure 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.
