BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.220 of 2015                                                                          

                                                         Date of Institution         :    14.12.2015

                                                          Date of Decision   :    08.12.2016.

Lakhwinder Kamboj son of Shri Bhajan Lal, resident of village Rasulpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa (Haryana).

                                                                                                                                       ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. Unique Sales Corporation, Opposite Head Post Office, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Partner/Proprietor/ Owner.

2. Samsung Care Centre, A.N. Telecom, 47, Dwarka Puri, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Incharge/ Manager.

3.  Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Properties Industrial Estate, New Delhi- 110044, through its Managing Director.

 ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….…PRESIDENT

                 SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL …… …MEMBER. 

Present:       Sh. Dharminder Chauhan,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite party no.1 exparte.

                   Sh.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for the opposite parties No.2 &3.

ORDER

          Brief facts of the present complaint are that on 3.3.2015, he purchased one mobile Samsung-3322 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.3200/- vide bill/ invoice No.18853 dated 3.3.2015 with warranty of one year. After purchasing of the said mobile, it could not work properly and it became defective and mobile was not displaying anything. The complainant approached to op no.1 who advised him to visit at Service Care Centre i.e. op no.2. OP no.2 after inspection found that there is jack problem and they opened the mobile of their own and damaged its condition intentionally and malafidely but refused to repair or replace the jack without any rhyme or reason and did not prepare job sheet. The mobile was returned to him saying that it cannot be repaired because of manufacturing defect. Since then the complainant is making round to the ops but the ops have not listened him. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon ups on 2.9.2015 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Opposite party no.1 did not appear despite due service and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                Opposite parties No.2 & 3 appeared and filed reply and submitted that the answering ops provide prompt after sales service in warranty period provided no outside interference/ repair has been done to the handset and was not mishandled but no such service was issued by ops since outside interference/ repair was evident from the product thereby breaking the terms of the warranty. The complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product which cannot be determined on the simple submissions of complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. The complainant regarding the unit approached the ops with some issue and engineering of the company thoroughly checked the unit in front of complainant and found that the unit is barred by warranty due to mishandling as there was rust on the jack of the unit and estimate of repair was given to complainant to which he refused to get the unit repaired on paid basis. The ops were and are still ready to repair the unit as per company policy. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.

4.                In evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, copies of postal receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, copy of bill Ex.C6, acknowledgments Ex.C7 and Ex.C8. On the other hand, ops no.2 & 3 tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of warranty card Ex.R2.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 & 3 and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                It has been established on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 on 3.3.2015 for a sum of Rs.3200/- as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C6. The complainant has alleged defects in the mobile in question within warranty period of one year. The opposite parties No.2 & 3 have not placed on file any expert report in support of their averments that mobile was already mishandled and therefore, complainant is entitled to repair of the mobile in question free of costs. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and direct all the opposite parties jointly and severally to repair the mobile in question of the complainant after replacement of defective parts, if any free of costs. In case the mobile is not repairable, then the opposite parties will either replace the mobile in question with a new one of same price and description or will refund amount of Rs.2500/- to the complainant against Rs.3200/- i.e. price of the mobile in question i.e. after deduction of amount of Rs.700/-. This order should be complied by all the opposite parties severally and jointly within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room. 

Announced in open Forum.                                   President,

Dated:  08.12.2016.                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                         Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                    Member.