DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.344 of 23-08-2013

Decided on 24-10-2013

Chander Mohan aged about 38 years S/o Krishan Lal R/o 6225, Lakhi Ram Street, Sirki Bazaar Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Jai Shiv Telecom, 2, Circular Road, Abohar, through its Proprietor.

2.Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.

3.Shri Ram Tele Services, Samsung Mobile Certified Service Centre, First Floor, S.C.O No.5, Street No.6, Nai Basti, Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

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

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Chander Mohan, complainant in person.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Kuljit Pal Sharma, counsel for the opposite party Nos.2

and 3.

Opposite party No.1 ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act') by the complainant. The brief facts of the complaint are that in order to purchase the mobile handset the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and on the inducement of the opposite parties he has purchased one Samsung Galaxy S Duos, model GT-S7562UWAINU, bearing IMEI No.*352985/05/504830/6*, *352986/05/504830/4*, colour pure white from the opposite party No.1 vide bill No.064 dated 23.2.2013 for Rs.13,000/- paid in cash with one year warranty provided by the company. At the time of selling the said mobile handset, the opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that the opposite party No.2 would provide after sale service to him in case of any problem arises in the product purchased by him through its authorized service centre i.e. opposite party No.3. In the month of August 2013 the said mobile handset was started giving problems of 'low battery backup' and 'hang'. The problem of hang is a major problem. The complainant immediately brought this fact in the notice of the opposite party No.3, it only after re-setting the setting of the said mobile handset returned the same by saying now it is OK. The said mobile handset gave the same problem and the complainant again sent the said mobile handset through his brother to the opposite party No.3 on dated 21.8.2013, it retained the said mobile handset vide job sheet No.4157844318 and asked him to collect the same on 22.8.2013. On 22.8.2013 the opposite party No.3 showed its inability to repair the said mobile handset and returned the same with giving remark on job sheet 'without repair handset return', thus the said mobile handset was returned to the complainant without any repair. The complainant further alleged that the mobile handset in question is within the warranty period and the opposite parties are liable to remove the defect in it to his satisfaction or in alternative they are liable to replace the same with a brand new mobile handset of the same price or in alternative to refund its sale consideration received by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant alongwith interest, cost and compensation.

2. Registered notice has been sent to the opposite party No.1 on dated 30.8.2013 vide postal receipt No.A RP281012007IN but none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.1 before this Forum despite receiving the summons, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.1.

3. Notice was sent to the opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect or inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of his allegations. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 denied that the problem arose in the said mobile handset in the month of August 2013. The alleged problem of hang is not a manufacturing defect and is caused mainly due to the downloading and installation of non-compatible mobile applications, games or virus threat etc. The said mobile handset was given the same problem and the complainant sent the said mobile handset through his brother to the opposite party No.3 on 21.8.2013. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 denied that on 22.8.2013 the opposite party No.3 showed its inability to repair the said mobile handset and returned the same with giving remark on job sheet 'without repair handset return'. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 denied all other averments of the complainant mentioned in the complaint.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. The allegations of the complainant is that the said mobile handset purchased by him on dated 23.2.2013 vide bill No.064 of make Samsung Galaxy S Duos, model GT-S7562UWAINU, bearing IMEI No.*352985/05/504830/6*, *352986/05/504830/4* became defective in the month of August 2013. As there was problem relating to low battery backup and hang, the complainant approached the service centre i.e. opposite party No.3, it after re-setting the settings of the said mobile handset returned the same by saying now it is OK. Again the defect occurred on 21.8.2013 and the said mobile handset was sent by the complainant through his brother to the opposite party No.3, it retained the said mobile handset vide job sheet No.4157844318 and asked him to collect the same on 22.8.2013 but on 22.8.2013 the opposite party No.3 showed its inability to repair the said mobile handset and returned the same with giving remark on job sheet 'without repair handset return' and the same was returned to the complainant without any repair.

7. On the other hand the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 denied all the averments of the complainant and have specifically mentioned that there is no manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset as the complainant has not placed on file any expert evidence to prove his allegations.

8. A perusal of record placed on file shows that on 23.2.2013 the complainant has purchased the said mobile handset vide bill No.064 for Rs.13,000/- and after 6 months (as per the record placed on file) it has become defective and the defect description is given in the job sheet dated 21.8.2013, Ex.C3:-'battery backup low, hang'. In this job sheet the remarks is given as 'without open handset return'. Again in the job sheet dated 21.8.2013, Ex.C4, it has been specifically mentioned that 'without repair handset return' and these remarks are entered in the same hand as entered in the job sheet, Ex.C3, meaning thereby the opposite party No.3 despite having the warranty on the said mobile handset has failed to rectify the defect, this fact has been admitted by the opposite party No.3 in its job sheet Ex.C4 as 'Warranty status:-Full warranty' and the said mobile handset was returned to the complainant without repair.

9. Thus from the above facts and evidence placed on file it is clear that the opposite party No.3 has failed to provide service to the complainant and has not intentionally rectify the defect in the said mobile handset, hence returned without its repair, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3.

10. Thus we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 as they have failed to rectify the problems in the said mobile handset. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.1. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are directed to replace the abovesaid mobile handset with same model, specification and brand to the complainant and at the same time the complainant will handover the defective mobile handset to the opposite party Nos.2 and 3.

11. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum

24-10-2013

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member