Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/5

Charanjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singh Walian Di Hatti & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Munish ahuja, Adv.

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                   Consumer Complaint No. :  05 of 01.02.2016

                                    Date of decision           :    16.08.2016

 

Charanjit Singh, son of Sh. Mohinder Singh, resident of # 693 Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar 

                                                        ......Complainant

                                             Versus

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

2.  V.H. Enterprises Authorized, Samsung Service Centre, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Near New Pizza Planet, Ropar, District Ropar. 

3.  Samsung India Pvt Limited, B-1, Sector 81, Phase 2, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh through its M.D.

 

                                                                                   ....Opposite Parties

 

                                        Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Munish Ahuja, Advocate, counsel for the complainant

O.Ps. No.1 & 2 ex-parte

Sh. Chetan Kumar Gupta, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party No.3

 

 

ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

 

                   Sh. Charanjit Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’)  praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To replace the said mobile or to return the money along with interest @ 18% P.A,

ii)      To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment caused to him  

iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/ as litigation costs,  

 

iv)     Any other relief which the Hon’ble Forum deems fit in the interest of justice, 

 

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 30.10.2015, he purchased Samsung Double Sim mobile model Galaxy J7 for a sum of Rs. 15000/- from the O.P. No.1 vide bill No.17843. At the time of its purchase warranty of one year was given with the assurance that if there is any defect in its functioning then he shall be at liberty to ask for the replacement of the set with the new one.  To his surprise, only after few days of its purchase, it stopped working and while using it automatically got switched off after 10 min and did not start. Mobile was not working properly and had hanged so many times and flash light was also not working from the very first day of its purchase and other apps were also not working. The mobile set in question was got defective within guarantee period. In the conditions mentioned on the bill itself that if any one facing any problem in the mobile set, then get it exchanged. He took his mobile set to the O.P. No.1 for rectification of the problem, who advised him to approach the service centre i.e. O.P. No.2 and had given assurance that if the problem is not rectified in the said mobile then same will be replaced with the new one by the O.P. No.2. On the advice of O.P. No.1, he visited the O.P.No.2 for repair of his mobile set, it told him that there is in built default in the said mobile and it can only be repaired after opening the same. He requested O.P. No.2 to replace the said mobile set with the new one as it got defective just after its purchase but the O.P. No.2 instead of doing so, had misbehaved with him.  Hence, this complaint.

3.                None having appeared on behalf of O.Ps. No.1 & 2, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.03.2016.

 

 4.               On being put to notice, the O.P. No. 3 filed written version in the shape of affidavit of Sh. Aninday Bose, C/o Samsung India Electronic Pvt Limted, taking preliminary objections; that the present is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts; that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has got no cause of action against the O.Ps; that the present complaint is nothing but an outcome of mere greed of mind of the complainant; that no detail are available in the system of the answering O.P. regarding lodging of any complaint by the complainant. The O.P. company is a renowned company  and has established number of service centers across the country and toll free number has also been mentioned on the box of the bills but the complainant never lodged any complaint with the customer care centre and also no complaint number or no job sheet has been attached along with the present complaint so this act on the part of the complainant clearly shows that a false story has been concocted. Had the complainant approached any of the service centre of company, in that case a complaint number/job sheet had been provided to him by the concerned service centre but he has not mentioned any complaint number in the complaint nor attached any job sheet with the complaint. The company provides one year warranty on the unit, warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, same would be repaired or its part(s) would be replaced as per company policy. Warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions:

1. Liquid Logged/water logging

2. Physically Damage

3. Serial Number missing

4. Tampering

5. Mishandling/burnt etc

 

                   It is also stated that the O.Ps. are always ready to repair the unit free of cost as per company policy on the deposit of the mobile set for its repairs to the service centre. But in the present case complainant has not been able to prove his visit at the service centre of the company, as per the IEMI mentioned on the bill and the no complaint has ever been lodged by the complainant. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with cost.

 

 5.               On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex. C1, documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Aninday Bose, Care of Samsung India Pvt Ltd Ex.OP3/A along with documents Ex.OP3/B to Ex.OP3/F and closed the evidence.  

 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and O.P. No.3 and gone through the record of the file carefully.

7.          The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that after few days of the purchase of the mobile set in question, it started giving problem and he on the advice of O.P. No.1 handed over the same for its repair to O.P. No.2 i.e. the service centre of the O.P. No.3. On inspection, the engineer of the O.P No.2 told him that there is in built default in the mobile set and would be repaired after opening the same and told to come after a week. After a week he again went to the O.P. No.2, he was told that neither the mobile in question can be rectified nor it can be replaced with the new one. Hence, this complaint.   

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 vehemently argued that the complainant neither lodged any complaint nor has handed over mobile set in question to the service centre for its repair. Onus is on the complainant to prove the said fact, however, has not placed on record any document to corroborate this fact. He further argued that on 23.05.2016, during the pendency of this complaint, complainant took the mobile set in question for its repair to O.P. No.2, as is evident from Job sheet dated 23.5.2016, Ex.C7. Accordingly, the engineer of the said service centre after checking the said mobile set and found no problem in it. Since, the mobile set was Ok and the said service centre called the complainant telephonically many times to collect the said mobile but complainant did not turned up to collect the same, therefore, the service centre vide letter dated 01.06.2015, Ex.OP3/C, requested the complainant to collect the mobile set in question within a week, failing which it would not be responsible. Thereafter, the complainant collected the mobile set. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 further argued that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, therefore, the complaint be dismissed with costs.

8.       From the cash/bill Ex.C3, it is evident that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from the O.P. No.1, which was manufactured by O.P. No.3 on 30.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.15,000/-. However, to corroborate this fact that complainant had taken his mobile set for its repair to O.P. No.2 i.e. service centre has not placed on record any document. Thus, in the absence of any documentary proof, it cannot be said that before filing this complaint, he had taken his mobile set for its repair to O.P. No.2. From the job sheet, Ex.C7, it is evident that complainant took his mobile set for repair to the service centre i.e. O.P. No.2 on 23.05.2016 i.e. during the pendency of the complaint. From perusal of the letter dated 01.06.2015, Ex.OP3/C, it is apparent that engineer of the service centre has checked the mobile set in question and found that the mobile set in question was O.K. In rebuttal to the said document nothing has been placed on record by the complainant. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we do not find any merit in the complaint. Consequently, we dismiss the same. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

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

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated .16.08.2016                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.