Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/855

Repandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gagan Preet Singh Adv.

21 Oct 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 855 dated 26.12.2016.            

                                            Date of decision: 21.10.2021. 

Ripandeep Singh son of S.Sandeep Singh resident of House No.263, Near BRS Nagar, Sunet, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Gold Course Road, Sector 43, DLF Ph-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122202 through its Managing Director.

2.M/s Unique Apps Solutions # 253, Nirankari, Street No.1, Miller Ganj, Gill Road, Ludhiana through its Authorized Signatory.

3.Amit Mobile, # Shop No.11, R.S.Model School Market, M.T.Extension, Near Krishna Mandir, Ludhiana through its Authorized Signatory.

4.The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., D.O.1, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                …..Opposite parties 

                Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gaganpreet Singh, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate  

For OP2                         :         Sh.N.K.Jain, Advocate

For OP3                         :         Exparte

For OP4                         :         Sh.Varun Sharma, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Sans unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Samsung A-7 mobile from the OP3 on 30.07.2015 vide invoice No.092 for a sum of Rs.24,700/-. The mobile was got insured from the OP4. After the purchase, the complainant noticed many problems in the mobile set due to which he approached OP2 on 19.07.2016 for repair of the mobile. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP2 many a times but the mobile was not returned after due repair. Ultimately, the OP2 flatly refused to hand over the mobile to the complainant. In the given circumstance, the OP1 being the manufacturer of the mobile and the OP2 being the authorized service centre along with the OP3, the dealer of the OP1 are jointly liable for causing harassment and mental tension to the complainant. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.24,700/- along with interest @18% per annum and a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.22,000/- as litigation /miscellaneous expenses be also awarded to the complainant.

2.                Upon notice, OP3 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP1, OP2 and OP4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1, it has been pleaded that the mobile set was physically damaged and any physical damage is not covered under the warranty and the repair is to be done on chargeable basis only. It has further been pleaded that the complainant submitted the handset to the OP2 for repair, who is not the authorized service centre of the OP1. According to the OP1, the liability, if any, is of the OP4, with whom the handset was allegedly insured. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In the written statement filed by the OP2, it has been pleaded that the complaint is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. According to the OP2, the complainant received back his mobile set bearing IMEI No.359926060457747 from the office of the OP2 on 31.08.2016. This fact has been concealed while filing the present complaint. It has further been pleaded that the mobile set was brought to the office of the OP2 on 19.07.2016 and at that time the backside of the camera of the mobile was damaged and broken. This fact was duly admitted by the complainant and was also noted on the job sheet issued by the OP2. At the time of receiving back the mobile on 31.08.2016, the complainant signed the receipt and also furnished his I.D. proof. OP2 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP4, it has been pleaded that the mobile phone was not insured with the OP4, as alleged in the complaint nor any relief has been claimed as against the OP4. The complainant has failed to supply the policy number vide which the mobile was insured. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

6.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 and closed the evidence.

7.                On the other hand, OP1 submitted affidavit as Ex.RA1 of Sh.Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager of Samsung India Electronics Private Limited of OP1 along with document Ex.R1/1 and closed the evidence.

8.                OP2 submitted affidavit Ex.DW2 of Sh.Shivani Singla, Partner of OP2 along with document Ex.DW2/1 and closed the evidence.

9.                OP4 submitted affidavit as Ex.RA/4 of Sh.Parvesh Verma, Divisional Manager of OP4 and closed the evidence.

10.              We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.

11.              The grievance of the complainant in this case is that he purchased the mobile set on 30.07.2015 from the OP3 and as there was some problem with the mobile, it was submitted with the OP2 for repair on 19.07.2016. It has also been claimed by the complainant that the OP2 neither repaired nor returned the mobile. However, this part of the claim does not seem to be tenable. It has been specifically pleaded by the OP2 in the written statement that the mobile set was duly returned to the complainant on 31.08.2016. A receipt was given by the complainant himself at the time of receiving back the mobile which is Ex.DW2/1, which is a photocopy of Identity Card of the complainant and it is specifically written on Ex.DW2/1 that the complainant has received back the mobile. The receipt Ex.DW2/1 is signed by the complainant. No evidence has been led that the receipt Ex.DW2/1 does not bear the signature of the complainant. Therefore, the part of the claim that the OP2 never returned the mobile to the complainant is not true. Moreover, it is the specific stand of the OP2 that it is not the authorized service centre of the OP1. In this regard, no evidence has been led by the complainant that the OP2 is the authorized service centre of OP1. Therefore, the OP2 was not under an obligation to repair the mobile free of costs. In these circumstances, the claim as against the OP2 is liable to fail as the mobile was duly returned to the complainant. Moreover, the OP2 was not under an obligation to repair the mobile free of cost under the terms and conditions of the warranty as the OP2 is not an authorized service centre of the OP1.

12.              On behalf of the OP1, it has been rightly argued that so called defect in the mobile was not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty. It has been pointed out that in the job sheet Ex.C4, it is specifically mentioned that the camera is damaged from back side. This job sheet Ex.C4 was produced by none else the complainant himself. As per the condition no.7 of the warranty terms and conditions Ex.R1/1, in case of any damage to the product/misuse detected by the authorized service centre personnel, the warranty conditions would not be applicable and the repairs will be done subject to availability of parts on a chargeable basis only. Since the camera of the mobile was damaged from the back side, as stated in the job sheet Ex.C4, apparently the damage was due to misuse/mis-handling of the product. Therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, the OP1 was not under an obligation to repair the mobile without any cost. Moreover, the mobile set was never submitted with the OP1 or its authorized service centre within the warranty period of one year. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the OP1, as admittedly the mobile set was submitted for repair with the OP2 which is not an authorized service centre of the OP1. Therefore, the complaint as against the OP1 also deserves to be dismissed.

13.              As regards to OP3, though the OP3 has chosen not to contest the complaint and has been proceeded against exparte but even as against the OP3, the complaint is not maintainable. OP3 is only an authorized dealer of the OP1 and as an authorized dealer the OP3 simply sold the mobile set to the complainant. Apart from that the mobile set was never brought to the OP3 for repair or any other purpose. Therefore, the OP3 can also not to be held liable for any deficiency of service.

14.              So far as the OP4 is concerned, it has been alleged that the mobile set was insured by the OP4. However, no policy of insurance or cover note has been placed on the file. During the pendency of the complaint, the OP4 filed an application dated 12.06.2017 for calling upon the complainant to disclose the policy number or to at least supply the cover note. However, despite filing of application, neither the policy number was disclosed nor the policy cover note etc was placed on record. Therefore, it is not clear as to whether the mobile set was insured with the OP4 or not. Counsel for the complainant has referred to the email Ex.C3 purported to have been sent by the Administrative Officer of  OP4 whereby the complainant was informed that he had intimated his claim on 19.07.2016 whereas the loss occurred on 25.06.2016 and therefore, due to delay of 25 days in intimation, the claim is not payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy. According to the counsel for the complainant, email Ex.C3 is an admission on the part of the OP4 that the mobile was insured with it and the claim was rejected simply on account of delay in lodging the claim

15.              We have thoughtfully considered the above contention of counsel for the complainant. In our considered view, in absence of the policy number or any other documents of the policy such as cover note etc, it would not be arduous to hold that the mobile set was insured with the OP4. Moreover, on bare reading of email Ex.C3, it appears that the claim of loss of mobile is said to have been rejected on the ground of delay of 25 days in lodging the claim. Even if the contents of email Ex.C3 are admitted to be correct, even it does not help the complainant in any manner. It is not the case of the complainant that the mobile was lost at any point of time. Therefore, the question of lodging of claim of loss of mobile does not arise. Secondly, as stated above in the foregoing part of this order, it has been established that the mobile was submitted with the OP2 for repair and the OP2 was not an authorized service centre of the OP1. It has also been established that the OP2 returned the mobile to the complainant vide receipt Ex.DW2/1 which is duly signed by the complainant. In these circumstances, when the mobile was never lost, the question of granting any claim on the basis of the policy, no document of which has been placed on record, does not arise.

16.              As a result of above discussion, it is held that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. As a result, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

17.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

18.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

 

                     (Jaswinder Singh)                      (K.K. Kareer)                                              Member                                   President

 

Announced in Open Commission                                            Dated:21.10.2021                                                                                     Gurpreet Sharma.