Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/117

Ratul Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singh Walian Di Hatti - Opp.Party(s)

Dheeraj Pasricha

18 Dec 2019

ORDER

THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                                 Consumer Complaint No. 117 of 18.09.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    18.12.2019

 

 

Ratul Sharma, son of Harjit Sahai, resident of # 1694/23, Gandhi Nagar, Ropar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Singh Walian Di Hatti, Near Indian Bank, Kalgidhar Market, Ropar.

2. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, 6^th Floor, DFL Centre, Sansand Marg, New Delhi 110001 through its Prop.  

           ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Dheeraj Pasricha, Adv. counsel for complainant

Sh. Mohit Vashishat, Advocate, counsel for O.P. No.2

O.P. No.1 exparte  

 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1. Ratul Sharma, son of Harjit Sahai, resident of # 1694/23, Gandhi Nagar, Ropar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the mobile set with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.15,490/-; to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation; to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.  
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 26.6.2019, the complainant had purchased mobile phone Samsung Galaxy A30 from O.P. No.1 for a sum of Rs.15,490/-. After purchase, the mobile set starting giving trouble as the screen of the mobile set was not working properly. Thereafter, the complainant gave set to Samsung Service Centre, Ropar on 25.7.2019 but service centre denied to repair the said mobile set. Till today, neither the O.Ps. repaired the mobile set in question nor replaced with the new one. Hence, this complaint  
3. On notice, O.P. No.2 appeared through counsel and filed a written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Hon'ble Forum; that the present complaint is bad for misjoinder of the necessary parties; that the OP No.2 has unnecessarily been impleaded as party to the present complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering O.P.; that the complainant has not sought the permission of this Forum under Section 11(2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that the present complaint is totally false and gross abuse of process of law; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering O.P. On merits, it is stated that the performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product. In the present case, the mobile hand set seems to be perfectly working as complainant has never submitted his mobile with authorized service centre with any kind of problem till date. But the complainant intentionally with ulterior motive has now filed the present complaint against the answering O.P. alleging totally false facts. The complainant has sought replacement of mobile or refund of price, which is not permissible under the law and also under the terms of warranty. The replacement or refund is only permissible where is defect developed during the period of warranty and is of such a nature that it cannot be cured or repaired. That for any defect developed after the lapse of warranty or defect due to the physical mishandling, liquid tampering. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for the dismissal thereof. 
4.   On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Anup Kumar Mathur, Director, Samsung India Electronics Private Limited Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence.   
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
6. Complainant counsel Sh. Dheeraj Pasricha, argued that Ratul Sharma purchased mobile phone Samsung Galaxy on 26.6.2019 worth Rs.15490/- from the O.P. No.1. After purchase, the mobile set in question started giving trouble and all of sudden the screen of the mobile set stopped working. Complainant approached the Samsung Service Centre Ropar on 25.7.2019 but the service center denied to repair the mobile set in question. Lastly prayed that deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. stands established, complaint be allowed with costs and directions be given to the O.Ps. to refund Rs.15,490/- along with costs of Rs.20,000/-. 
7. Counsel for the O.P. No.2, Sh. Mohit Vashishat, argued that so far the sale/purchase of the mobile set by the complainant from OP No.1 that is not denied as complainant has placed on file the purchase bill, he forcefully argued that the complainant did not approach  the Samsung Service Center at any stage. No expert report has been placed on the file relying upon by the complainant qua the functioning of the mobile set. In the absence of expert opinion no relief can be granted in favour of complainant. More so, the OP No.2 moved an application for the expert opinion/check up the mobile set in question and the said application has been opposed by the complainant. Lastly prayed that in the absence of expert opinion and at no time, the complainant approached to the Samsung Service Centre then no relief can be granted against the OP No.2. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost. 
8. The sale/purchase of the mobile set worth Rs.15,490/- dated 26.6.2019 and in support of the purchase complainant placed on file the purchase bill dated 26.6.2019 proves the complaint is within  limitation and this forum has the territorial jurisdiction. 
9. Coming to the real controversy, it is the prime duty of the complainant to prove the deficiency on the part of O.Ps. No.1 & 2. Complainant has taken the plea that after a few days of the purchase the screen of the mobile set stopped working and on 25.7.2019, he approached the Samsung Service Centre, Roper, who denied to repair it. In consonance to the complaint, complainant relied upon sworn affidavit Ex.C1, no new thing has come in the affidavit. Ex.C2 is the legal notice on behalf of complainant and Ex.C3 are the postal receipts. Beside this, there is nothing on the file. At the same time, contesting OP No.2 has taken the stand in the written reply that the complainant had not approached the Samsung Care Centre at any stage since the date of purchase till the filing of this complaint. Learned counsel for OP No.2 admitted that if any defect is within warranty period then Samsung Service Centre/contesting O.Ps. are duty bound to remove the defect of the hand set but in Para No.7 of the reply it is pleaded that if there is any lapse in warranty qua the mobile set (1) defect due to physical mishandling (2) Liquid tampering then the Samsung Care Centre is not responsible.
10.  After appreciating the documentary evidence as well as the purchase bill, the complainant in support of his version has not placed on file any expert opinion. The forum is to grant the relief in case the  complainant has been able to prove deficiency. No doubt the mobile set purchased is within warranty but no expert opinion is on the file. Even OP2 moved the application dated 13.11.2019 with the prayer to examine the hand set of complainant purchased on 26.6.2019 and the said application has been strongly opposed by the complainant. Rather the forum is of the opinion that OP No.2 acted beyond the reach to save the interest of the consumer, which is denied by the complainant. This forum has no hesitation in holding that onus to prove defect in the set in question through the expert evidence is the duty of the complainant to which he remain failed. So, the complaint is without merit.     
11.  In the light of discussions made above, the complaint stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

12. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.18.12.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER