BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 295 of 2017
Date of Institution : 14.11.2017
Date of Decision : 21.3.2018.
Balkaran Singh son of Sh. Jalour Singh, resident of village Sainpal Kotha, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1 Shayam Guru Associate, Main Bazzar, Ellenabad, District Sirsa through its Prop/Partner/Authorized person.
2 Samsung Care Centre, C/o Shyam Guru Associate, Main Bazar, Ellenabad, through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Person.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. A-25 Ground Fl;oor, Front Tower Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi- 110044, through its Prop/ M.D/ Auth. Person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Ms. Parmeshwari Legha, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 and 3.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant was in need of a mobile, hence he visited to the shop of op no.1 and asked to show a mobile of reputed company. Then op no.1 showed the mobile Model of Samsung J7(2016 ) and asked to complainant that this mobile is a latest mobile of reputed company of Samsung and on every type of his assurance, the complainant purchased the said mobile of Samsung J7 on 28.10.2016 for the amount of Rs.16000/-. The op no.1 issued a bill no.5149 to the complainant. It is further averred that within one month of purchase of the mobile, the said mobile started to create problems i.e Auto off, Display lining, charging problem, speaker problem etc. The complainant immediately approached op no.1 and told about problem. Then op no.1 asked that this is a minor problem and op no.2 care centre will remove the said problem and at that time op no.2 had taken the said mobile from complainant in the month of May, 2017 and ops no.1&2 had assured to replace the same with new one, otherwise they will return the same price of the said mobile. After one week when complainant approached op no.2 and asked about his mobile, then op no.2 returned the same after its repair but within few days some another problem i.e. Auto off and stopped functioning created in it and then op no.2 had taken the said mobile on 31.5.2017. The complainant approached both the ops but they both started to put the matter off with one pretext or the other. Since then ops have kept the mobile of complainant and are unnecessary harassing and humiliating the complainant since the day of purchase of the mobile and are not replacing the said mobile with new one and also not returning the sale price of the said mobile. The complainant got served a registered legal notice dated 17.10.2017 upon ops and same was received by the ops but neither they replied the same nor taken any action in this regard. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite party no.2&3 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding cause of action, territorial jurisdiction and suppression of true and material facts. It is further submitted that the intent of the op company is to serve its customer and provide goods at the most competitive price and also to enable most impeccable after sales service and there is no intent whatsoever to deny the same under any circumstances. In case any after sale service/quality issue is brought to notice of the op/service center, as a policy matter the same is immediately corrected as a matter of priority. Had the complainant approached the service center of the answering op rightfully with correct facts, prompt service would have been provided but rather than doing so the complainant has instead preferred the present motivated complaint, hence the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal on this ground alone. It is further submitted that the answering op as a matter of policy issues prompt after sales service in warranty period provided no outside interference/repair has been done to the handset and the same was not mishandled but no such service was issued by the ops since outside interference/repair was evident from the product thereby breaking the terms of the warranty provided. It is further submitted that the op company is ready and willing to repair the product alleged to be not working properly. The complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product. It is pertinent to mention here that alleged defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. The complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report for the perusal of this forum. It is further submitted that the unit of complainant in regards to the complaint in the unit was reported to the service center of company on 28.11.2016 vide complaint No. 4226313494 and reported display problem in his unit. The engineer of service center checked the unit and resolved the issue by replacement of LCD of unit and unit became ok. After that the unit of complainant in regards to the complaint in the unit was reported to the service center of company on 12.4.2017 vide complaint no.4234370789 and reported vibration not work problem in his unit. The engineer of service center checked the unit and no problem was found in the unit. The engineer told to person approached that there is no defect in the unit and just only to refresh the unit, the software of the unit can be updated. The concerned person agreed upon and accordingly software of the unit got updated and set ok and the concerned person took the delivery of the unit to his full satisfaction. It is further submitted that after that the complainant never reported any issue to company and without any cause of action, directly filed the present complaint. It is further submitted that company provides one year warranty on the unit and warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per company policy and the warranty of the unit(warranty means only repair not replacement) is subject to some conditions and the warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions:-
1. Liquid Logged/water logging.
2. Physically Damage.
3. Serial no. Missing.
4. Tampering.
5. Mishandling/Burnt etc.
It is further submitted that the ops were and are ready to provide services to complainant as per conditions of warranty, so there is no deficiency in service on part of answering ops. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex. C2, customer copy Ex.C3, customer information slip Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5 and copies of postal receipts Ex.C6. On the other hand, ops no.2 and 3 produced affidavit of Sh. Anindya Bose C/o Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon Ex.R1, copy of warranty card Ex.R2 and copy of acknowledgment of service request Ex.R3.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his allegations has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and has also specifically deposed qua the fact of purchase of mobile for Rs.16000/- and the defects which his mobile suffered. He has further deposed that ops no.1 and 2 had assured to replace the same with a new one since May, 2017. Since then ops have kept the mobile and unnecessarily harassing and humiliating the complainant since the day of purchase of the mobile. On the other hand, ops no.2 and 3 have furnished affidavit of Sh. Anindya Bose of Samsung India Electronic Private Ltd. Gurgaon, the representative of ops no.2 and 3 as Ex.R1 who has specifically deposed in his affidavit that without prejudice to the objections as to maintainability of the complaint and otherwise, the op company is ready and willing to repair the product alleged to be not working properly. The opposite party no.1 did not come forward to appear and contest the complaint due to reason best known to op no.1 and evidence led by complainant against op no.1 goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. Non providing of proper services to the complainant within warranty period qua repairs of mobile set clearly amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of ops. However, complainant did not lead any cogent and convincing evidence from which it could be presumed that mobile set of complainant suffers from any manufacturing defect, but however, it is legal obligation of the ops to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set of complainant and to make same defect free without any cost.
7. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set of the complainant even by replacing any parts of the mobile free of costs and to hand over the same to complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in the alternate the ops are directed to hand over a new mobile set of the same make and model to the complainant if mobile in question is found not repairable, without any cost within further period of 30 days. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:21.03.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
