BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No. 79 of 2018
Date of Instt. 26.02.2018
Date of Decision: 08.02.2022
Sonia Sharma aged 43 years wife of Sh. Parveen Sharma resident of 474, Guru Amar Dass Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Office at 20 to 24th Floor Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana.
2. Proprietor of Giptech Computers situated at Near Doaba Chowk, KMV College Road, Jalandhar.
3. Proprietor of Shabd Enterprises Address:-201, 202, Upper Ground Fir, Palam Rose, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Ashu Mittu, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Vishal Chaudhary, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 3.
OP No.2 exparte.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein she has alleged that she visited the shop of OP No.2 for the purchase of buying of new phone on 18.04.2016. The OP No.2 assured complainant that the Samsung A7 mobile is a good phone and it costs Rs.33,000/-. It is a very safe and smart phone though it is very costly. That on 18.01.2018, husband of the complainant was on his work and the mobile which he had kept in his pocket suddenly exploded. He was severely injured and burnt, as he was admitted to the hospital. He remained out of his work due to burnt injuries, as he was unable to put on his clothes. That on 20.01.2018 complainant approached OP No.3, Service Centre of Samsung and she came to know that the battery was burnt in the phone. Samsung A7 is a phone in which it is not possible to remove or even touch the battery by a prudent person. It is locked by all sides. That a meeting was arranged on 01.02.2018 by the OP No.3, in which he disclosed the complainant that different tests have been made on the battery in the OP No.1 workshop. After that OP No.3insisted the complainant to take the possession of the mobile alongwith the tampered battery, which was then refused by the complainant. That complainant has suffered mental agony and lot of mental tension and harassment due to this blast and burnt injuries suffered by her husband and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation on account of damages and burnt injuries suffered by the husband of the complainant.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OPs No.1 and 3 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich her at the cost of answering OP by filing frivolous claim. The complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal on this ground alone. There is no manufacturing defect in the handset as alleged by the complainant. The handset in question has been used extensively by the complainant for more than 21 months, had there been any alleged manufacturing defect it would not have worked for so long. Thus present complaint merits dismissal in the light of afore stated facts. It is further averred that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The answering OP has unnecessarily been impleaded as party to the present complaint. No cause of action arose to complainant to file the present complaint against the answering OP. The handset in question has been tampered and forcefully disassembled by the complainant leading to the damage caused to the handset and its battery due to which the battery of the handset burnt/burst. There is no manufacturing defect in the handset as alleged by the complainant. The handset in question has been used for more than 21 months and had there been any alleged manufacturing defect it would not have worked for even one single day. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service or breach of contract on the party of the answering OP. The answering OP been impleaded as party to the present complaint and present complaint merits dismissal on this ground. It is further averred that the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the Commission as he has concealed the true and material facts. The complainant has not come before the Commission with clean hands. The mobile handset in question has been got tampered by the complainant leading to damage. It is further averred that the obligation of the answering OP under warranty is subject to the warranty terms and conditions as mentioned in warranty card supplied with the product. The performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product. In the present case the mobile has been physically tampered and forcefully disassembled leading to damage to the battery of the handset. But complainant intentionally with ulterior motive has now filed the present complaint alleging totally false facts. On merits, the factum in regard to purchasing the mobile handset by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint by the complainant are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A and affidavit of Sh. Parveen Sharma as Ex.CW2/A alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.
4. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose as Ex.OP1/A alongwith documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 and then affidavit of Sh. Rajat Sharma as Ex.OP2/A alongwith documents Ex.R2/A to Ex.R2/D and then affidavit of Sh. Sachin Sharma as Ex.OP3/A along with documents Ex.R3/A to Ex.R3/C and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for both the parties, very minutely.
6. The case of the complainant is that she purchased Samsung A7 mobile for Rs.33,000/- from OP No.2 on 18.04.2016. On 18.01.2018, the husband of the complainant took the mobile with him on his work and kept the mobile in his pocket, which suddenly exploded. He was severally injured and burnt and he was admitted to the hospital. The complainant approached the OP No.3 and it was disclosed to the complainant that different tests is to be made on the battery of the mobile in the workshop of OP No.1. Thereafter, the OP No.3 insisted the complainant to take possession of the mobile alongwith tampered battery. The complainant suffered mental agony and tension and physical injuries because of the poor quality of the phone, which has proved harmful and fatal for the complainant’s husband risking his life and her family members.
7. The complainant has proved on record the bill Ex.C-1, Certificate of the doctor of the Civil Hospital Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, Clipping of the newspaper, in which news of explosion of the battery and injuries suffered by the complainant are published i.e. Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 and acknowledgement of the service request Ex.C-7.
8. The contention of the OPs No.1 & 3 is that there is no manufacturing defect in the battery or mobile phone. It has been admitted that the burnt handset was produced by the complainant on 20.01.2018 and meeting was arranged, in which the complainant was apprised of all the tests to be done on the battery. It has also admitted that after the test, the expert concluded that the battery of the phone has been tampered and forcefully disassembled, due to which the battery was burnt and the complainant was requested to take back the mobile handset. Other facts have been denied by the OPs No.1 & 3.
9. It is proved on record by Ex.C-1 that the mobile handset Samsung A7 was purchased by the complainant from OP No.2 on 18.04.2016. The other documents filed on the record by the complainant show that the husband of the complainant was injured due to explosion of the battery and was admitted in the hospital on 18.01.2018. The mobile was given to OP No.3 on 18.01.2018 for repair and as per Ex.C-7, the mobile was out of warranty and the defect was found as battery burnt. It is admitted by the complainant that he was informed that some tests are to be done on the battery by the OP No.1. The complainant used the mobile for about 21 months without any complaint. In the written statement, the OPs have alleged that the handset has been tampered and forcefully disassembled by the complainant leading to the damage caused to the handset and its battery due to which the battery of the handset burst. These allegations have not been controverted by the complainant even in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A or by filing the replication/rejoinder. To prove this fact that the handset in question has been tampered and forcefully dissembled, the OPs have proved on record the analysis result Ex.R2/B which shows that the battery got burnt due to forcefully disassembly by external source. Detailed analysis report has been proved by the OPs as Ex.R2/C, the photographs Ex.R2/D have been proved on record by the OPs, in which it has been pointed out in a specific photograph that the damaged seen due to forceful disassembly at customers end, which is clear from the photographs itself and as per Ex.R4 the dents were found on side corners of set and the detailed dents have been shown in these photographs. Ex.R4 is consisting the photographs of the mobile externally as well as internally alongwith scan and x-ray analysis of the mobile.
10. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the examination of battery and other tests have been made in the phone in the workshop of the OP No.1, which clearly indicates that the OPs were always at driving position and can tamper with the evidence, which they have done to, but this contention is not tenable as in the reply Ex.R-5 to the legal notice Ex.C-8, the OP No.1 has specifically alleged that as per experts, there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile and despite requests, the complainant has not taken back the mobile. In the affidavit Ex.OP2/A, it has been alleged that there was no heat mark/patch on the components and the internal electrical components was intact and OK. There was no heat impact in the handset pocket, where battery is fitted and this is due to forcefully disassembly of the battery. The complainant has not examined any expert or produced on record any report of the expert to rebut the opinion of the expert i.e. Ex.R2/B and Ex.R2/C. As per the record, the handset has become out of warranty. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed and thus, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order. However, since the phone was out of warranty, the complainant can get the mobile phone repaired from the OPs No.1 to 3 on the required payment, if he desires, as per the condition, of ‘out of warranty’ filed on record by the OPs Ex.R-2as per law. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj
08.02.2022 Member President
