Delhi

North East

CC/69/2015

Ravinder Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung - Opp.Party(s)

06 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 69/15

 

In the matter of:

		Shri Ravinder Kumar S/o Sh. Balveer Singh Rashtryavadi Shiv Sena Karyalaye Shahdara Chowk, Delhi-110032.		Complainant
		Versus
	1         2         3	The Manager Samsung Head Office 35 Huda Main Market, Sector-31 Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001   The Manager Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. F-26/3, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-2 New Delhi-110020   RRSS Communication  Pocket H 159-A, Dilshad Garden Delhi-110095.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		20.02.2015
			DATE OF DECISION      :		06.09.2017

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by Shri Ravinder Kumar, the complainant against The Manager, Samsung Head Office- OP1, The Manager, Samsung India Electronic Pvt Ltd- OP2 and RR.SS Communication- OP3 with the allegation of deficiency in service. Complainant has stated that on 12^th March 2014 he had purchased one Samsung Galaxy S-7582 bearing IMEI No. 351602069039533 and 351603069039531 for Rs. 9990/- from OP3. It is stated that after six months of purchase there was problem with the handset for which the complainant approached Vanshikha service centre on 11.09.2014, 22.11.2014, 8.12.2014 and 26.12.2014 where the handset could not be repaired. On 27^th January 2015, complainant also visited Shelsima technologies Pvt Ltd, Authorized Service Centre of OP2 where jobsheet was issued stating that “Handset PBA Blotted and Burnt not covered under warranty”. The complainant has stated he was informed that the said handset could not be repaired as it was out of warranty. Complainant has prayed for replacement or refund of Rs. 10,000/- the cost of the mobile, Rs. 12,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 8,000/- as litigation cost.

Complainant has annexed invoice dated 12^th March 2014 and jobsheet dated 27^th January 2015 alongwith complaint.

 

2. Notice of present complaint was served upon OPs. OP1 and OP2 in their defence stated that the handset of the complainant was out of warranty due to the report “PBA Liquid Locked”. It was stated that OP1 and OP2 do not provide warranty against liquid damage, and due to liquid damage it resulted is collapse of warranty, no deficiency in service could be attributed on their part as they were always ready to resolve the problems as per warranty terms and condition. The grievance of the complainant was addressed every time he approached the service centre. It was also stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the handset. Rest of the contents of the complaint were denied and thus prayed for dismissal of the present complaint. However, none appeared for OP3 despite services and no reply was filed on their behalf hence, they were proceeded Ex-parte.

 

3. Rejoinder was filed by the complainant where the contents of the complaint were reiterated and those of the Written Statement filed by OP1 and OP2 were denied.

 

4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where he examined himself and stated the contents of the complaint. He has stated that the handset was within the warranty period and he was assured of after sale services by OP3. He has also stated that on 22^nd November 2014, he was informed at the service centre that there was manufacturing defect. He has also deposed that a written complaint was sent to OP on 30^th January 2015 for redressal of his grievance. The complainant has relied on copy of retail invoice as Annex C1, copy of jobsheet dated 27^th January 2014 as Annex C-2, copy of written complaint dated 30 January 2015 alongwith postal receipts as annex C3 and C4.

 

5. OP examined Anindya Bose, Authorized representative of OP1 and OP2, who reiterated the contents of the written statement filed on behalf of OP1 and OP2.
6. We have perused the material placed on record as the complainant had stopped appearing for past many dates. The complainant has placed on record the jobsheet which clearly reflects that there was problem with the PBA (Mother Board) which was not covered under warranty. When the said handset was not covered under warranty due to liquid damage the complainant was liable to pay for the repairs. Further, the complainant has not placed on record any jobsheet/complaint no to prove that there was some defect in the handset within 6 months of purchase as alleged. This being so, no deficiency in service be attributed on the part of OPs. Hence the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without order to cost.   

  

7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

 

8. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  06.09.2017)    

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member