DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.280/2016

Shri Tejpal

S/o Shri Jai Bhagwan

R/o H.No.67, Near MCD Park,

VPO Dichaon Kalan,

Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043                                     ….Complainant

Versus

1. Time Emporium

Time Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd.

S-8, Green Park Market,

New Delhi-110016

2. Samsung Service Centre

A-16, Tagore Market Kirti Nagar,

New Delhi-110015

3. Apps Daily Protection

C/o Time Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd.

S-8, Green Park Market

New Delhi-110016

4. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd.

Head Office:

20^th to 24^th Floor Two Horizon Centres

Gold Course Road, Sector-43,

DLF Phase-V, Gurgaon,

Haryana-122202                                       ….Opposite Parties

                                                  Date of Institution      :         07.09.16               Date of Order               :         28.03.19   

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member - Kiran Kaushal

Briefly put case of the complainant are:-

1. The complainant, Tejpal purchased two mobile handsets on 09.05.2016 of Samsung model No. A800(A8) Gold Samsung  by making payment through his credit card for total sum of Rs.53,000/- from Time Emporium (OP-1) manufactured by Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-4). On the advise of OP-1 the mobile handsets in question were insured with Apps Daily Protection (OP-3) and total sum of Rs.4,998/- were paid for the same. Copy of the invoices / bills dated 09.05.2016 are annexed as Annexure-A1.
2. The complainant states that both the phones started malfunctioning within one month of the purchase. Problems like fingerprint sensor not working, hanging issues, calls drop etc. started occurring. Complainant approached Samsung Service Centre (OP-2) for redressal of his grievance. It is alleged that OP-2 repaired the phones but did not provide any job card stating that “now your handsets its OK and there is no need for any job card”.
3. It is further averred that after a month, in July 2016 the problems started recurring again and the complainant again submitted his mobile phones with OP-2 for removal of the defects. OP-2 repaired the handsets and assured the complainant that such problems will not occur in future. Copy of the job sheet dated 11.07.2016 is annexed as Annexure-2.
4. But to complainant’s dismay the problems started occurring again and in the month of August, 2016 the complainant again deposited his mobile phones with OP-2 for repair. When the complainant approached OP-2 for collecting his mobile phones, the employee of OP-2 told him that they were unable to rectify the defects of the phones as the phones were having inherent manufacturing defects. The complainant asked them to state this fact in writing which was refused. The complainant collected the handsets from OP-2 and wrote on the job card that the phones were not working properly and he was not satisfied with the services of OP-2. Thereafter, complainant approached OP-1 and OP-3 and apprised them about the condition of the handsets and asked them to replace the handsets with new one but they shifted the liability on OP-4 stating that your phones are suffering from the manufacturing defects.   
5. Aggrieved by the circumstances above the complainant approached this forum for directions to OPs to replace the mobile phones with new ones along with one year warranty or in the alternative refund the price of the handsets i.e. 53,000/- plus Rs.4,998/- with interest @ 18% from the date of purchase. Further it is prayed that OPs be directed to pay sum of Rs.20,000/- towards harassment, inconvenience etc. and Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

2. OP-4 resisted the complaint inter-alia on the ground that OP-4 being a global manufacturer of various types of electronics and household items, the products manufactured by OP-4 passed through stringent quality check and test trials before the actual start of the commercial production. It is submitted that customers of all the products manufactured by OP-4 are provided services through a large network of authorized service centers in India.
   1. It is submitted by OP-4 that the complainant had approached the service centre of OP-2 twice for certain problems in the handsets of the complainant. On both occasions the complaint was resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is submitted that OP-4 has performed all its obligations under the terms of warranty.
   2. OP-4 has specifically denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the said handsets. It is stated that mere oral assertions of the complainant are not sufficient to prove any manufacturing defect in the said mobile phones as the complainant has not enclosed any technical report of any expert.
   3. In view of the submissions made OP-4 has denied adopting any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service due to any act of omission or commission on part of OP-4. It is thus, prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost being devoid of merits.

3.      OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 were proceeded exparte vide order dated 10.01.2017. 

4.      Replication to written statement is not filed by the complainant. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the complainant wherein facts of the complaint are reiterated. Evidence of Shri Anindya Bose Authorized Representative has been filed on behalf OP-4.

5.      Written arguments have been filed by OP-4.

6.      Oral arguments on behalf of the complainant and OP-4 are       heard and material placed on record is perused very carefully.

7.      Admittedly, the complainant purchased two mobile handsets of the same make and model no A800 (A8) Gold Samsung and paid total sum of Rs.53,000/- to OP-1. Both the handsets were insured with OP-4 for total sum of Rs.4,998/-. Copy of invoices/ bills dated 09.05.2016 are annexed as Annexure-A1.

8.      Both the mobile sets started having problems after a month. The complainant approached the authorized service centre of the company with problems in both his phones Job cards dated 11.07.2016 and 17.08.2016 are annexed as Annexure A2 and Annexure A3. It is averred by the complainant that first time when he gave the handsets in question for repair, he was not provided with the job card saying that ‘now your handset is Okay & there is no need for a job card”.

          It is hard to believe that he was not provided with the job card, as on the next two occasions job card was provided to the complainant by OP-2.

9.      It is further the case of the complainant that the mobile handsets worked fine for some time but within a month the problems in the handsets occurred again. When the complainant approached OP-2 to collect his mobile phones, the employee of OP-2 told him that they were unable to rectify the defects of the phones as the phones were having inherent manufacturing defects. The complainant collected the phones from OP-2 and also brought back the job card after writing on the job cards in his own hand writing “phones not working properly and I am not satisfied with the services”.

10.    As regards the inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile handsets, we are of the view that bald averment which is not supported with any technical experts opinion hold no water in the eyes of law. It is the case of the complainant that the mobile handsets though under warranty period were not repaired by the authorized service centre of OP-4.

11.    The Forum is of the opinion that when the complainant was not satisfied with the services and the phones were not working fine why did he collect the phones from the service centre? The complainant has further not placed any evidence on record whether the phones were repaired from any other service centre or any expense was incurred on both the handsets in question.

12.    In the absence of any credible evidence that there was a manufacturing defect in the phones or the same had remained unrepaired, we are of the view that the complaint is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 28.03.19.