BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                            Consumer Complaint No. 512 of 2014

                                            Date of institution:                   14.08.2014

                                            Date of Decision:             25.03.2015

Shubham Verma son of Kuldeep Kumar Verma, resident of House No.940, Sector 6, Main Bazar, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) 140301.

                                                                        ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Samsung Service, Authorized Samsung Service Centre, Mobile Solutions, Address: SCF 48, First Floor, Phase-5, Mohali.

                                                                     ………. Opposite Party

                        Complaint under Section 12 of the

                        Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

                        Shri A.B. Aggarwal, Member.

Present:    None

(MRS. MADHU P. SINGH, PRESIDENT)

ORDER

                The case of the complainant is that he had purchases Samsung Mobile Phone Model Galaxy S Duos2 for an amount of Rs.10,865/- from R.P. Computers, SCO 8, Ground Floor, Gulmohar Complex, Desu Majra, Sector 125 Kharar. The battery of the phone used to go out of order due to immediate drainage of battery from 40% to 0%. The complainant got serviced the mobile phone four times from the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) but without any effect. First time the OP installed new software in the phone but the problem remained same. Again a new battery was put in the phone without any effect as the battery went out of order within 25 days. When the complainant again contacted the OP, he was informed that warranty of accessories has been finished and the complainant would have to pay Rs.1,550/- which the complainant paid and new battery was put in the mobile set but the problem remained same.  Again the mobile phone was kept by the OP for 3-4 days and thereafter the complainant was informed that the motherboard of the mobile phone has been spoiled due to some water in it and for its repair the complainant had to spent Rs.5,000/- from his own pocket.

                With these allegations the complainant has sought directions to the OP to repair the mobile phone of the complainant or to refund its sale price and also pay him compensation for harassment and costs of litigation.

2.             The OP in written statement has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the mobile set is not in warranty. Any external damage caused to the mobile set cannot be attributed to any defect in the mobile set and is not covered under warranty. When the complainant brought the mobile to the OP on 06.08.2014 after checking it was informed to the complainant that the set having been exposed to water/liquid, its motherboard had become faulty and the complainant was liable to pay for its repair. There is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has not mentioned any date when he visited the OP and has also not produced any job order on record.  The complainant visited on 06.08.2014 when he was informed that the motherboard of the phone has been spoilt on account of exposure to water/liquid which is not covered under warranty. Thus denying any deficiency in service, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Evidence of the complainant consist of his affidavit Ex.CW1/1 and bill dated 13.12.2013 Ex.C-1.

4.             Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Virender, its authorized representation Ex.OP-1/1.

5.             Despite amply opportunities, none appeared for the parties for oral arguments. Neither of the parties have produced the warranty card of disputed mobile hand set. Therefore, on the basis of pleadings and evidence on the complaint is being adjudicated.

6.             The factum of purchase of mobile hand set vide bill dated 13.12.2013 Ex.C-1 is not disputed. After the purchase the complainant has approached the OP number of times for effecting repairs on the hand set when it was not working properly. The perusal of the complaint as well as evidence shows that the dates of the visit by the complainant to the OP are not disclosed. On the other hand, the OP has attached job card dated 06.08.2014 showing the defect identified by them in the hand set i.e. water damage and out of warranty. The complainant refused to get the hand set repaired. As per the complainant his refusal was on the ground that the OP has demanded Rs.5,000/- to fix the problem whereas the complainant has insisted to get the repairs done free of cost.

7.             Since none of the parties have attached the warranty card either with the complaint or in the evidence, therefore, we are unable to appreciate the fact whether the mobile hand set was within the warranty or not whether the demand of Rs.5,000/- by the OP from the complainant for effecting repairs is justifiable or not. Thus, in the absence of proper evidence in this regard, the complainant has failed to set out his complaint of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

8.             Therefore, the complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs Certified copies of orders be sent to the parties free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.     

March 25, 2015

                                                                  (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                                     President

                                                                            (A.B. Aggarwal)

                                                        Member