Haryana

Ambala

CC/433/2017

Ankush Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Verma Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Bhanu Partap Singh

20 Sep 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; AMBALA.

 

Complaint No.433 of 2017.

Date of Instt.:07.12.2017.

Date of Decision: 20.09.2018.

 

Ankush Gupta son of C.L.Gupta r/o H.No.716-717 Sector 9, Urban Estate Ambala City.

...Complainant

     Versus

 

1.Verma Electronics Shop No.1/2675/2 Mission School Gate, Jagadhari Gate Ambala City through its proprietor.

2.Samsung authorized service centre through its manager cross Rd 8, mocha mandi, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Sadar, Haryana.

3.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. ltd. through its General Manager through its Samsung authorized service centre cross Rd 9, Mochi Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Sadar, Ambala.

..Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.         

         

Present:       Sh.Ankush Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

                   OP No.1 exparte.

                   Sh.Rajeev Sachdeva, Advocate for OP Nos. 2 & 3.

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he had purchased a mobile Samsung J7 PRO from the OP No.1 bearing IMEI No.358074080960305 IMEI No.358675080960302 for a sum of Rs.20,100/- vide invoice No.268 dated 09.08.2017. The set in question was having one year warranty. In the first week of October, 2017 the display of the mobile got defected and thereafter within 4-5 days it got dark black and dark blue besides not working of finger censor. The complainant and his friend visited the OP No.1 and on its asking they visited Op No.2  but it was revealed to them that there is manufacturing defect in the phone  and the same is not covered under warranty and the repairing cost of the phone is Rs.5500/-. The complainant further visited the service centre at Ambala City but to no effect. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavits Annexure CA, Annexure CB and Annexure CC alongwith documents Annexure C1 and Annexure C2.

2.                 On notice, OP Nos.2 & 3 appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing joint reply. OP No.1 did not appear before this Forum, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.01.2018.  OP Nos.2 & 3 in their reply have taken the preliminary objections such as cause of action, concealment of material facts, jurisdiction of this Forum. It has been submitted that the company provide goods at the most competitive price and also to unable most impeccable after sales service and there is no intent whatsoever to deny the same under any condition and in case any after sale service/quality issue is brought to notice of the respondent/service centre, as a policy matter the same is immediately corrected as matter of priority. The present complaint has been filed by mischievous intentions because the company has liabilities in case of physical damage or in case of warranty exclusions and even the warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions:

                   1.Liquid logged/water logging

                   2.Physically Damage                                                                                  3.Serial No.Missing.                                                                                      4.Tampering.                                                                                              5.Mishandling/Burnt etc.                 

 

There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op Nos. 2 & 3  because as per condition of warranty, replacement of the product or refund is expressly excluded and warranty covers only repair or replacement of any part thereof which needs replacement or repair for any reason of defective workmanship or defective components, which makes it clear that when there is defect in a part, it shall only be repaired and/or replaced by the OPs.  The complainant has failed to prove any negligence on the part of OPs and that as a consequence, loss or injury was suffered by him.  The present complaint has been filed with baseless grounds as there is no expert opinion or technical report. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for appearing OPs and have gone through the case file carefully.

4.                 Undisputedly the complainant has purchased mobile from OP No.2 on 09.08.2017 for payment of Rs.20,900/- vide invoice Annexure C1. The grouse of the complainant in this case is that after the purchase of the mobile it went out of order within short period as there was problem in the display besides not working of finger censor. He approached to the Op No.1 and on his asking he visited the Op No.2. To prove the defect in the mobile the complainant has place on record copy of inspection report Annexure C2 given by Parveen Kumar son of Ind Raj being an expert witness of Hi-tech Institute for mobile technology and in his report he has opined that  there was no physical damage to the mobile and display started changing colour and dark spot was appeared which may be increase day to day and it might be covered full display and he come to the conclusion that there is some technical mechanical defect in the product in question. The expert witness was duly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the Op No. 2 & 3 but perusal of the cross-examination does not yield anything which could suggest that the mobile was defect free and was not creating problem. Rather the opinion of expert witness questioning the impeccable features of the product in question which the Op Nos. 2 & 3 are claiming in their joint reply. Though the learned counsel for the Op Nos. 2 & 3 has placed the copy of terms and conditions of the product in question and drew the attention of this Forum towards warranty conditions but it also does not helpful to the case of the OPs because there was no physical damage in the mobile handset and this fact also authenticated by the expert in his report.

                             In the present case it is established that the mobile hand set went out of order within a short span and even there was no physical damage, tampering and even there is no allegation qua mishandling of the handset etc.  Therefore, we have no other option but to reach at a conclusion that there is grave deficiency in service on the part of op nos. 2 & 3 as they have sold the defective handset to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is hereby allowed against Op No.2 & 3 and dismissed against Op No.1.  The OP Nos. 2 & 3 are directed to replace the mobile in question having same value/same model to the complainant on depositing the handset alongwith its accessories. In case the OP NOs. 2 & 3 in not in position to replace the handset as directed above then in that eventuality they would pay the cost of the mobile amounting to Rs.20,900/- alongwith simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization besides compensation of Rs.3,000/- for harassment, mental agony including litigation expenses. This order should be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order jointly and severally by Op Nos.2 & 3.  Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.

 

Announced on: 20.9.2018 

 

                                                                                                                                                   

                                    (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)              (D.N.ARORA)

                                    MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT