BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 32 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 05.02.2021.
Date of Decision : 05.09.2024.
Deepak Mittal aged about 40 years son of Sh. Vinod Mittal, resident of Shop No. 86, New Grain Market, Kalanwali, District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110001 (India) through its authorized person/ Manager.
2. Samsung Service Center, 201-291A, 2nd Floor, AVA Court, Sohna Road, Gurgaon, 122001 through its authorized person/ Manager.
3. Shree Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa through its authorized person/ Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite parties no.2 and 3 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that on 19.10.2019 complainant had purchased Mobile Samsung F-900/ Galaxy Fold for a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- from op no.3 and op no.3 assured that mobile has one year guarantee of any type of technical defect, fault as well as accidental damages. That after some time, the mobile developed some technical defect and display of mobile shown green light and when complainant contacted to op no.2 they assured the complainant to repair it and issued job sheet on 07.03.2020 and op no.2 stated that it will take some time for repair of mobile. The complainant thereafter contacted the op no.2 many times for repair of his mobile or for replacement of same but they always lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and now flatly refused to repair the mobile and mobile is still in their possession. It is further averred that op no.2 assured the complainant many times that they will replace the mobile and on the assurance of op no.2 he did not take any action but now they flatly refused to replace the mobile and stated that mobile is out of warranty and as such ops have caused deficiency in service and harassment and adopted unfair trade practice towards complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections that complainant concealed the real and material facts of present case. In fact, the handset of complainant has been duly checked by the efficient/ expert of engineer of answering op and same has been found damaged due to negligence of complainant and as per warranty policy conditions, the handset is out of warranty. It had been duly informed to complainant that handset is out of warranty and repair of handset shall be on chargeable basis, but knowing well all circumstances, the complainant has made false story just only to grab illegal benefits of his own wrong. It is further submitted that it is the settled position of law that an expert opinion of an appropriate laboratory/ cogent evidence is mandatory to prove the allegations/ averments made by complainant in regards to any imperfection or defect but complainant has failed to provide the same. That answering op provides one year standard warranty period for his handset and also the said standard warranty is subject to some conditions and one of the condition is that if the handset got damaged the warranty becomes void. On merits, it is submitted that complainant approached to the service center of company on 07.03.2020 and reported display color defective problem in his handset. The engineer of the company checked the handset and found that handset is damaged i.e. display of the mobile was found damaged due to impact/ external pressure. The engineer told to the complainant that warranty of the handset is barred due to damage/ LCD damage and the repair of the handset shall be on chargeable basis and issued a job sheet vides call no. 4300708176. But the complainant refused to pay the charges of repair and left the service center without collecting the handset. It is further submitted that thereafter, the engineer of the service center many times contacted to complainant and requested to either get the handset repaired as per warranty policy or to collect the same, but the complainant never came to the service center and never got ready for paid repair. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
4. Op no.3 did not appear despite service of notice and as such op no.3 was proceeded against exparte. Notice issued to op no.2 through registered cover not received back and as a period of 30 days elapsed but none appeared on behalf of op no.2, therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
5 The complainant in evidence has tendered copy of invoice Ex.C1 and job card Ex.C2.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Sahijwani, General Manager as Ex. RW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Gurmeet Singh Arora, owner of Samsung Service Center as Ex. RW1/B and warranty card Ex.R1/1, job card dated 07.03.2020 Ex.R1/2, technical report Ex.R1/3, estimate letter Ex.R1/4 and photocopies of photographs Ex.R1/5 to Ex.R1/9 and bill Ex.R1/10.
7. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.1 and have gone through the case file.
8. From the invoice Ex.C1, it is evident that on 19.10.2019 complainant purchased the mobile in question from op no.3 for a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-. Though complainant has alleged that within guarantee/ warranty period of one year the mobile in question developed technical defect and its display started showing green light and the technical defect, fault as well as any accidental damages were covered under the guarantee of one year. However, op no.1 has denied the said fact and averred that warranty of the handset became void as display of the handset was found damaged due to impact/ external pressure and same is not covered under the warranty. The job card dated 07.03.2020 Ex.C2 and Ex.R1/2 also mentions that mobile is having major dent and scratch on device and photographs of the mobile placed on file by op no.1 as Ex.R1/6 to Ex.R1/8 also show that mobile is having dent and major scratches and as per warranty card, the warranty of the handset is void if defect is due to misuse. So the handset of the complainant gone out of warranty and as such complainant is entitled to any relief due to mishandling of the mobile in question. The complainant has failed to prove on record that mobile was having warranty of damage due to accident or due to any other reason.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 05.09.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
