DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 673
Instituted on: 23.11.2016
Decided on: 10.04.2017
Varinder Goyal @ Binder aged 36 years son of Naresh Kumar resident of #1258, Ward No.7, Dashmesh Nagar, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. Singla Mobile Care, Near Baba Peer, Sangrur Road, Bhawanigarh through its proprietor Parneet Kumar Singla.
2. Gaurav Communications authorized service centre Samsung Mobiles, Street No.2, Near Railway Chowk, Gaushala Road, Sangrur through its authorized representative.
3. Samsung India Electronic Private Limited A-25 Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate, New Delhi through its Managing Director.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Ms. Anjana Jindal, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.1&2 : Exparte
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3 : Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Varinder Goyal, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Samsung mobile bearing Model Samsung Galaxy J7 Gold from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.14700/- vide invoice no. 1000 dated 20.12.2015 under one year warranty. On 05.10.2016 the mobile set was displaying totally blank for which the complainant approached OP no. 2 who received the set and issued job sheet dated 05.10.2016 ( wrongly written as 05.10.2015). The complainant visited the office of OP no.2 so many times and requested them to give him the mobile set after repairing it but nobody is paying any heed to the complaint of the complainant and OP no.2 has kept the mobile set of the complainant with him of which he has not right which is still under warranty. The complainant has been visiting in the office of OP no.1 in this regard and requested him to replace the set but the OP no.1 has specifically denied to accede the request of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to pay Rs.14700/- along with as cost of set supplied by the OPs,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs no. 1 and 2 did not appear and as such OPs no.1&2 were proceeded exparte.
3. In reply filed by the OP no.3, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, cause of action and jurisdiction have been taken up. On merits, it is submitted that complainant approached OP no.2 on 05.10.2016 and OP no.2 issued the manual job sheet as the reason for blank display could only be ascertained after internal inspection of the handset. On internal inspection of handset by OP no.2 it was found damaged due to liquid logged means liquid has ingress inside the handset leading to damage of display screen of the handset, liquid logging is a breach of warranty terms and conditions as mentioned in the warranty card. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.3.
4. The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.3 has tendered documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/3 and closed evidence.
5. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the complainant on 05.10.2016 (wrongly written as 05.10.2015) approached OP no.2 with complaint of blank display of the mobile set who kept the mobile set in question with it and issued job sheet dated 05.10.2016 which is Ex.C-4 on record. The complainant's specific case is that he time and again visited the OP no.2 and requested to give him the mobile set after repairing it as it is within the warranty period but OP no.2 did not do so. On the other hand, OP no.2 case is that on internal inspection of handset by the OP no.2 it was found damaged due to liquid logged means liquid has ingress inside the handset , liquid logging is a breach of warranty terms and condition as mentioned in the warranty card. But, from the perusal of the warranty card and other documents on record we do not find anywhere that liquid logging is a breach of warranty terms and conditions.
6. The OP no.3 has specifically stated that the OP no.2 after checking the handset internally told complainant telephonically about the liquid logging and breach of warranty conditions. The estimate of repair was given to the complainant but the complainant refused to get his handset repaired on chargeable basis hence the handset was not repaired by OP no.2. The OP no.2 has been requesting complainant to take back his handset if he does not want to get it repaired on chargeable basis.
7. The complainant has stated in his complaint that it appears that the handset has some manufacturing defect due to which it has not been working properly since beginning but he has not produced on record any report of an expert which could show that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. As such, the complainant is not entitled for replacement of handset or refund of price of handset in question. We feel that it would be better if the order for repair of the mobile set is passed because the complainant has failed to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile set.
8. For the reasons recorded above, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OPs to handover the mobile set inquestion to the complainant after repair of it. We further order the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
9. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. Announced
April 10, 2017
( Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member Member President
BBS/-
