Haryana

StateCommission

A/688/2016

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TARANJIT KAUR - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SURI

09 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      688 of 2016

Date of Institution:      26.07.2016

Date of Decision :       09.01.2017

 

1.     Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, Plot No.44, Sector-44, 2^nd Floor, near P.F. Office, Gurgaon-122001.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.3

 

2.     Bharti Communications-Service Centre (Samsung Mobiles), 117, Lala Lajpat Rai Shopping Complex, near Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal, Haryana, through its Manager.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1.      Mrs.Taranjit Kaur w/o Sh. Ramandeep Singh, Resident of Shahabad, now resident of Officers’ Colony, Sector-19, Kaithal, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      S.S. Gallery, Ladwa Road, near Easy Day, Shahabad, District Kurukshetra, Haryana, through its proprietor.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Puneet Tuli, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Sidharth Singh, Advocate on behalf of Shri Manbir Rathi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 performa.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This appeal has been preferred against the order dated May 16^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint No.3 of 2016 filed by complainant-Taranjit Kaur (respondent No.1 herein) alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for selling defective mobile phone, was accepted. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-    

“….we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide bill/invoice No.141 dt.13.05.2015. However, it is made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.61,200/- as the cost of mobile to the complainant. The Ops are also burdened with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) as lump sum compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of copy of order.”

2.                The complainant-respondent No.1 purchased a G-925 Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge (64 G.B.) ZK 3596/0066057750 mobile set from S.S. Gallery, Ladwa Road, Shahabad, District Kurukshetra-Opposite Party No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) on May 13^th, 2015 for Rs.61,200/- vide Retail Invoice Exhibit C-1. It carried warranty of one year from the date of purchase.

3.                On December 21^st, 2015 the mobile set stopped working. It was sent to Service Centre of Samsung India Electronics Private Limited-Opposite Party No.3/appellant No.1 vide Service Request Exhibit R-2. The Opposite Parties did not repair the mobile set, rather raised a false plea towards the damage stating that it was misused and therefore was not covered under the warranty. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

4.                Notice being issued, the opposite party No.1 did not contest the complaint and was proceeded exparte. The Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 contested complaint by filing joint written version admitting sale of mobile set to the complainant, however, raised plea that it was physically damaged set and therefore was not covered under the warranty. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                Counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question vide bill Exhibit C-1 with warranty of one year. It is also not disputed that the mobile set stopped working and was handed over to the Service Centre of the opposite party No.3-manufacturer, vide Service Request Exhibit R-2 on December 21^st, 2015. Though the repair was refused stating that the mobile set was physically damaged, however an alternative plea raised in the written version was that if an equipment or machinery is repairable, it should not be ordered to be replaced. However, the opposite parties have not examined any representative from the service centre to say that it was repairable/not repairable.  Merely arbitrarily mentioning that “Touch Breakage Impact Damage”; without same being proved by examining the official who examined the mobile set cannot discharge the opposite parties from their liability. It is a common practice by sellers to give lot of assurances at the time of sale, however when the question of after sale service arises because of some defect, sellers always pull their hands. The mobile set was admittedly out of order even as per opposite parties-appellants. Though the plea of physical damage was taken but the same has not been proved by the opposite parties. The opposite parties not offering to repair the mobile set, certainly there is no other alternate but to replace the same or refund the price. In view of this, the District Forum taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly issued direction to the opposite parties. Thus, the impugned order does not require any interference.

7.                Hence, the appeal fails. it is dismissed.

8.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 09.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL