Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/32/2020

Madhu Bala W/o Rishi Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Surender Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sohan Lal

03 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.32 of 2020

                                                     Date of institution: 21.01.2020

                                                     Date of decision: 03.02.2022.

                         

Madhu Bala wife of Sh.Rishi Pal, resident of village Dudhi, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.

.                                                                …Complainant.

                        Versus

1.Surender Electronics, Hanuman Mandir, Indri Road, Ladwa, Kurukshetra through its Proprietor.

2.Samsung Care Center, Sector 17, Kurukshetra through its Proprietor.(OP No.2  given up vide  statement dated 5.3.2021).

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 6^th Floor, DLF Center, Sansand Marg, New Delhi 110001, through its Proprietor/owner.

….Opposite parties.

                Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Sh.Sohan Lal  Advocate for the complainant.

                OP No.1 and 2 ex parte.

                Sh.Shekhar Kapoor Advocate for the OP No.3.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Madhu Bala  against Surender Electronics etc. the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant  had purchased a mobile Phone of Samsung Model A-7, 64 GB from OP No.1 bearing IMEI No.352982/10/3634781 NS 352983/10/363478/9  for a sum of Rs.19,000/- on 4.2.2019 vide invoice No.2508 dated 4.02.2019  with one year warranty.  It is further stated that the OP No.1 is seller and the OP No.2 is the authorized service center and the OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the said phone. It is further submitted that after the purchase of the mobile phone, it has various problems such as touch problems, insert sim message, no incoming audio and no battery back up including switch off when calling and vaibrator not works properly and ring tone etc and the complainant has been approaching the OP No.2 who is service center of the company at Kurukshetra as advised by the OP No.1.  The OP No.2 had left the service center for Samsung mobiles and now a days a van came at above said address for service of mobiles of the Samsung phones.  The complainant approached on 26.4.2019 to OPNo.2 and he returned the mobile phone to the complainant after  repairing the software  of the said device as he says that it was the problem due to software only.  On 21.5.2019, again the mobile phone in question became totally out of order with the same problems and on the directions of the officer of the company, the complainant deposited the phone  with the OP No.2 and on 22.5.2019 the complainant approached the OP No.2 and asked to give the job sheet  but the OP No.2 denied it and after two three days repaired the software of device and the complainant collected his mobile from OP No.2 who assured that the mobile phone would work properly and further assured that if some defect again develops, the mobile phone would be replaced.  The mobile phone worked properly for two days and it stopped working on 24.05.2019 and on approached the OP No.2 told to the complainant that the mobile phone is having manufacturing defect and could not be repaired and further told that he  could not do anything in the matter and no job sheet was given which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed that the Ops be directed to return the amount of Rs.19,000/- alongwith interest and compensation for the mental harassment caused  to him and the litigation expenses.

 

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops. OP no.1 failed to appear and contest the case despite due service. Therefore, OP No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 12.03.2020.

                However, OP No.2 was given by the learned counsel for the  complainant vide statement dated 5.03.2021 and accordingly his name was deleted from the array of Ops.

 

4.             OP No.3 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  It is submitted that the purchase of the mobile phone is a matter of record subject to verification of the invoice for the alleged product. The answering OP provided one year warranty  for the alleged product in question subject to warranty terms and conditions and  the OPNo.1 do business of selling product with its dealers on principal to principal basis.  The  answering OP has no control  or interference in the business of the dealer.   It is submitted that the oral averments  are not sufficient to prove the alleged defect and the same cannot be determined on the simplicities submission of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. No expert report of technical analysis has been attached with the complainant.   As per limited  details mentioned in the complaint, no complaint number, serial number no  of product or valid contact number has been provided  by the complainant and for the reason no details found in online system of the company which means that  complainant has never approached to service center or to the OP which means that there is no problem in the product and the present complaint has been filed just to grab benefits from the answering OP. All other averments have been denied specifically by the OP No.3 and it has been submitted that the complainant has no cause of action and the present complaint is not maintainable.

 

5.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered the documents Ex.C-1  and closed his evidence.

6.             On the other hand, OP No.3 in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered the document Ex.R-1 and closed its evidence.

 

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant  while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that complainant  had purchased a mobile Phone of Samsung Model A-7, 64 GB from OP No.1 bearing IMEI No.352982/10/3634781 NS 352983/10/363478/9  for a sum of Rs.19,000/- on 4.2.2019 vide invoice No.2508 dated 4.02.2019  with one year warranty.  It is further argued  that the OP No.1 is seller and the OP No.2 is the authorized service center and the OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the said phone. It is further submitted that after the purchase of the mobile phone, it has various problems such as touch problems, insert sim message, no incoming audio and no battery back up including switch off when calling and vaibrator not works properly and ring tone etc and the complainant has been approaching the OP No.2 who is service center of the company at Kurukshetra as advised by the OP No.1.  It is also argued that OP No.2 had left the service center for Samsung mobiles and now a days a van came at above said address for service of mobiles of the Samsung phones.  The complainant approached on 26.4.2019 to OPNo.2 and he returned the mobile phone to the complainant after  repairing the software  of the said device as he says that it was the problem due to software only.  On 21.5.2019, again the mobile phone in question became totally out of order with the same problems and on the directions of the officer of the company, the complainant deposited the phone  with the OP No.2 and on 22.5.2019 the complainant approached the OP No.2 and asked to give the job sheet  but the OP No.2 denied it and after two three days repaired the software of device and the complainant collected his mobile from OP No.2 who assured that the mobile phone would work properly and further assured that if some defect again develops, the mobile phone would be replaced.  It is lastly argued that the  mobile phone worked properly for two days and it stopped working on 24.05.2019 and on approached the OP No.2 told to the complainant that the mobile phone is having manufacturing defect and could not be repaired and further told that he  could not do anything in the matter and no job sheet was given which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

9.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.3 while reiterating the submissions made in the written statement has argued that submitted that the purchase of the mobile phone is a matter of record subject to verification of the invoice for the alleged product. The answering OP provided one year warranty for the alleged product in question subject to warranty terms and conditions and  the OPNo.1 do business of selling product with its dealers on principal to principal basis.   It is further argued that the   answering OP has no control or interference in the business of the dealer.   It is submitted that the oral averments  are not sufficient to prove the alleged defect and the same cannot be determined on the simplicities submission of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. No expert report of technical analysis has been attached with the complainant.    It is lastly argued that as  per limited  details mentioned in the complaint, no complaint number, serial number no  of product or valid contact number has been provided  by the complainant and for the reason no details found in online system of the company which means that  complainant has never approached to service center or to the OP which means that there is no problem in the product and the present complaint has been filed just to grab benefits from the answering OP.

 

10.            After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is some defect in the mobile phone in question.  The phone in question was purchased by the complainant on 4.02.2019 and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 21.01.2020 i.e. well within one year of the warranty period.  The Ops are bound to repair or replace the mobile phone in question within the warranty period.  The complainant has come with a definite stand that the Service Centre has been closed and  a vain used to come for repairing of the Samsung Phones. The version of the complainant is further supported by his affidavit that the OP no.2 failed to issue the job sheet despite due service, therefore, the claim of the complainant cannot be set aside merely on the basis of non producing of job sheet especially when the mobile phone was within warranty period. Therefore, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to repair the phone in question to the satisfaction of the complainant due to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances and in the interest of natural justice, it would also be proper to direct the OP No.1 to bear the  80% of the repair charges and the remaining 20% of the repair charges would be  paid by the complainant.

 

11,            In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 to get repaired the mobile phone of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant. However, we  direct the OP No.1 to bear the  80% of the repair charges and the remaining 20% of the repair charges would be  paid by the complainant.  The OP No.1 is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of this order failing which the complainant would be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated: 3.02.2022                                                        President.

 

                Member                     Member.