Delhi

East Delhi

CC/292/2017

BEENA JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

03 Mar 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE,DELHI 110092

Consumer complaint no.  292 /2017

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                 01/08/2017

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                03/03/2020

                                                                                                  Date of Order                         11/03/2020

 

In matter of

MrsBeena Jain

w/o- Sh. Rakesh Jain

R/o- B8/695 Gali no. 2

Ganesh Nagar, Shakarpur, Delhi 110092…….……..…………………..….Complainant

 

Vs

1- M/s Samsung Smart Café (seller)

23,VeerSavarkar Block,

Shakarpur, Delhi 110092

 

2- M/s Samsung India Pvt Ltd. (manufacturer)

20-24 Floor, Two Horizone Center,

Golf Course Road, Sector 43,

DLF Phase V, Gurugram, Haryana 122202.…………………………….……Opponents

 

Complainant                                       In Person

Opponent Advocate                          M/s Kapoor&KapoorAsso.-MrPrashantKapoor Adv.

 

 

Quorum         

ShSukhdev Singh      President

Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                   

MrsHarpreetKaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

Complainantpurchased a Samsung mobile from OP1/ M/s Samsung Smart Café having model no. SMT285YXDYINS on 19/08/2016 with accessories for a sum of Rs13400/-vide cash memo no. SMT28SID (Ex CW1/1) with one year standard warranty.

It was stated that the said mobile started problems as getting hot, network problems and auto start so took mobile to OP2/ service center on 25/072017 and got repaired and after some time again developed same problems, so OP gave in writing that mobile had software issue (Ex CW1/2) and told such issues developed due to some internal problem. The said mobile was returned by OP2 though mobile was under warranty (Ex CW1/3). Complainants asked for replacement of mobile or remove defects properly, but OP2 denied for giving new mobile or removing internal defects. So filed this complaint and claimed compensation of Rs 50,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment.

OP2submitted joint written statement through authorised representative Mr. AnindaBoss and denied all the allegations against them. It was stated that said mobile had standard warranty of one year with conditions whose copy was annexed here (Ex OPW1/Anne. 1). There was no deficiency in their services nor had any manufacturing defect in the said mobile, so this complaint be dismissed based on the law laid down in the Apex court’s judgment in Sushila Automobiles Ltd. VsDrBirendraNarain& others, 3(2010)CPJ 130,NC where it was stated that manufacturing defects had to be proved by the opinion of Expert which was not annexed here by complainant. As far as replacement was concerned, it could only be possible when manufacturing defect was present (Ex OPW1/Anne2). Here complainant failed to prove. Only services could be possible under terms and conditions.

Complainant in her rejoinder with evidences on affidavit as Ex CW1/1 and Ex CW1/2 where she affirmed on oath that all the contents stated in her complaint were correct and true. So prayed for allowing her complaint.

OP2 submitted evidences on affidavit through MrAnup Kumar Mathuras an authorized representative affirmed that present complainant was not genuine as per standard warranty conditions, only services could be provided(Ex OPR1/1) and the said mobile had passed quality test whose report was on record (Ex OPW1/3). There was no deficiency in their service during warranty tenure and thus this complaint may be dismissed.  

 

Arguments were heard from both party counsels and after perusal of records on file, order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidence of case. It was seen that the said mobile had developed some defects during warranty period and it had some software problem which was not manufacturing defect and it could be repaired. As far as allegation of refusing refund by OP1 was concerned, it cannot be accepted as OP1 was a service provider. Also complainant used her mobile for about nine months without problem or defects (in absence of job sheet or any expert report), so replacement cannot be ordered. OP1 is directed to rectify defects within 30 days from the date of order. If any parts are required, OP1 will charge actual cost of parts from complainant,  if she wishes to get her mobile repaired as there was  no deficiency in services s. Also no evidence produced by the complainant to prove that his mobile had manufacturing defect.

Thus, we come to the conclusion that complainant could not establish deficiency in services of OP2 or defective product was sold by OP3, so, OPs are discharged from any liability so this complaint is dismissed without any cost.

 

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per the section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short the CPR)  and the file be consigned to Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.

 

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari                                                                                               MrsHarpreetKaur

Member                                                                                                     Member

 

ShriSukhdev Singh

      President