DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 419 of 13-09-2010 Decided on : 28-02-2011
Pawan Kumar aged about 45 years, S/o Babar Chand, House No. 9270, Street No. 98, Mini Secretariat Road, Bathinda. ....Complainant Versus
Uni Tech. Sony Ericsson Near Teacher Home. Mehna Marg, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner Samsung Service Centre, New Krishna Continental, Krishna Market, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Manager. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., 77 M 8th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61 Nehru Palance, New Delhi 19 through its Manager.
.... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. R K Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For the Opposite parties : Sh. Rohit Jain, counsel for the opposite party No. 2 Sh. Sikander Verma, opposite party No. 1 in person Opposite party No. 3 exparte.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant purchased Samsung mobile B259 vide Invoice No. 768 dated 20-06-2009 from opposite party No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 1600/-. After a short period, the said mobile started creating problems and finally became dead. The complainant approached opposite party No. 1 as the mobile hand set was within warranty/guarantee period. The opposite party No. 1 advised the complainant to go to opposite party No. 2. The complainant approached opposite party No. 2 on 21-07-2009 and conveyed the problem. The opposite party No. 2 retained the set with it for repairing the same. The complainant approached opposite party No. 2 and he was conveyed that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile hand set. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 many times for inquiring the status of mobile hand set, but it delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant ultimately requested the opposite party No. 2 either to replace the mobile hand set or refund its price because the complainant was unable to proceed with his work without the said mobile hand set, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint. The opposite party No. 1 filed its written statement and pleaded that the mobile hand set was sold to the complainant in sealed box and he opened the box and checked the handset from all aspects and found the same working fine. But, if any fault occurs after few days then necessary services are provided by Company itself through its Authorised Service Centre and it has been mentioned on the invoice that Warranty will be given by Company only. The opposite party No. 2 in its written statement submitted that mobile set in question did not suffer form any inherent or manufacturing defect. Rather the same became non functional due to reckless misuse and rough handling on the part of the complainant himself which rendered repairs out of warranty. The mobile set was brought to opposite party No. 2 for repair purposes with report that it was dead and received as such by opposite party No. 2 without checking. Later on, after the same was examined, it was discovered that the damage had taken place due to reckless, mishandling and abuse by the complainant rendering the repair out of warranty. When the complainant was informed by opposite party No. 2 about this fact and inquired from him as to whether he was willing to get the mobile set repaired at his own cost, he replied in negative and since then the mobile set is lying un-repaired with opposite party No. 2 and the complainant has not come forth either to collect or to get it repaired despite repeated calls made to him possibly due to cheap price of the mobile set and also the fact that complainant was already making use of another set/piece. Registered notice of the complaint was sent to opposite party No. 3, but none appeared on its behalf despite service of notice, and as such, exparte proceedings were taken against it. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant had purchased one Samsung mobile hand set B259 vide Invoice No. 768 dated 20-06-2009 from opposite party No. 1 after paying Rs. 1600/-. After a short period, the said mobile hand set started creating problems and finally became dead. The complainant approached opposite party No. 2 for repair of the set and it conveyed to him that there was manufacturing defect in it. The complainant approached many times to opposite party No. 2 but it had tried to delay the matter and finally the complainant requested the opposite party No. 2 either to replace the mobile hand set or to refund it price but till date nothing has been done by the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 submitted that opposite party No. 1 has sold the mobile hand set in question to complainant in a sealed box. It has been opened and checked by the complainant and if fault has occurred in it, the services are being provided by the authorised service centre i.e. opposite party No. 2, The learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 submitted that there was no inherent or manufacturing defect in the mobile hand set. It became non-functional due to reckless misuse and improper handling by the complainant which rendered repairs out of warranty. The said mobile hand set was brought to opposite party No. 2 for repairs when it was dead and was received by opposite party No. 2 without checking it. After the same was examined, it was discovered that the damage had taken place due to reckless, wanton mishandling and abuse by the complainant which has made the repairs out of warranty. The complainant was asked to get the hand set repaired after paying the consideration for it, but the complainant had refused to pay repair charges and the hand set in question is still lying un-repaired with opposite party No. 2. The complainant has never approached opposite party No. 2 to take back his mobile hand set. The complainant has purchased mobile hand set in question on 20-06-2009 vide Ex. C-2 for a consideration of Rs. 1600/- from opposite party No.1. A perusal of Job Card Ex. C-3 reveals that mobile hand set in question was received by opposite party No. 2 without checking in dead condition on 21-07-2009 which means that the defect in the hand set had occurred within a period of one month. Sh. Hardinesh Aggarwal, proprietor of opposite party No. 2 in his affidavit Ex. R-1 has deposed that complainant brought the mobile set for repair purposes to his premises with the complaint that it was dead i.e. non-functional. The same was received by his employees without checking. Later on when the hand set was examined it was found that the set had been damaged due to reckless wanton, mishandling and abuse by the complainant and the intended repairs were not within warranty. The complainant was asked to use another mobile hand set in the meantime. The complainant was not willing to get his hand set repaired at his own cost and since then, it has been lying un-repaired with him. Sh. Harjinder Singh, Service Engineer of opposite party No. 2 had stated in his affidavit Ex. R-2 that the mobile hand set in question had been damaged due to water logging of the mother board. The damage was due to reckless misuse by the complainant and the repairs were not within the warranty. The said service engineer has deposed that opposite party No. 2 has repaired the set at his own cost which is nominal amount to the extent of Rs. 375/- including service charges of Rs. 275/- and Rs. 100/- as cost of the spare part. The opposite party No. 2 has also produced Customer Details Cum Warranty Card Ex. R-3 and its Condition No. 7 reads as under :- “In case of any damage to the product/misuse detected by the Authorised Service Centre personnel, the warranty conditions are not applicable and repairs will be done subject to availability of parts and on a chargeable basis only.” The opposite party No. 2 has submitted that there was water logging and the mobile hand set was damaged due to misuse on the part of the complainant, but there is no cogent and convincing evidence on file to prove this version of opposite party No. 2. Even no remark has been given on Job Sheet Ex. C-3 to this effect by the opposite party No. 2. Hence, this plea on the part of opposite party No. 2 is an after thought. The complainant has alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile hand set in question, but he has also failed to prove this fact by leading any evidence on the file. In view of the above discussion, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 500/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No. 2 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos. 1 & 3. The opposite party No. 2 has already repaired the mobile hand set in question at his own cost. Thus, the opposite party No. 2 is directed to deliver the said mobile hand set to the complainant duly repaired without charging anything from him as the said handset is within warranty, with Rs. 500/- as cost and compensation, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned.
Pronounced 28-02-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President (Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
