Haryana

Karnal

CC/111/2017

Shubham Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sunil Dutt Sharma

14 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.111 of 2017

                                                             Date of instt.:22.03.2017

                                                               Date of decision:14.06.2017

 

Shubham Sharma, age19 years son of Shri Sunil Sharma, resident of House no.338, Gali no.6, Gandhi Nagar, Karnal.

 

                                                                  ..……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director.

2. M/s Telus Global Verifacts Solutions, shop no.20, 21, 22, Asa Ram Market, Karnal-132001.

3. M/s Vasu Telecom, shop no.56, Palika Bazar, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Kaithal-136027 through its prop/partner.

                                                                                      

    ……… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

Ms. Veena Rani…..Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

                  

 

Present:-      Shri S.D.Sharma Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.

                   Opposite parties no.1 exparte.

                                       

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one Samsung Mobile, model J7-Prime, bearing IMEI No.352336086491984 from opposite party no.3 for a sum of Rs.18800/-, vide invoice no.544 dated 21.11.2016, with a warranty of one year. From very beginning the same started giving problems of hanging, battery and auto off.  He approached the opposite party no.2 on 11.1.2017 for repair of the mobile set. After 2/3 days the mobile set was delivered to him with an assurance that the defects were removed, but after 10 days the same problems developed alongwith the problem of calling in engaging.  He again approached the opposite party no.2 for repair of the mobile set and after repair the mobile was returned to him. However, after some days the same problems occurred. He visited the opposite parties several times for repair of the mobile set, but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. It appeared that there was manufacturing defect in the set. On 16.1.2017 he again approached opposite party no.2, but the service engineer expressed inability to repair the mobile set. Even the  job sheet was not issued and he was misbehaved. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service on their part, which caused him mental agony, harassment and financial loss

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statements disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no cause of action; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and concealed the true and material facts; that the complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions; that the complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed just to grab illegal benefits from the opposite parties no.1 and 2.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant approached to the service centre, vide complaint no.4228895889 on 11.1.2017 and reported some hanging and battery issue and the unit of the complainant was thoroughly checked by the engineers in his presence, but no problem was found. So, just to refresh the unit, only software was upgraded. Thereafter, complainant approached the opposite parties on 21.1.2017 and reported battery and heating problem in the unit. The Engineer of the opposite parties checked the unit and found that the unit was damaged due to mishandling on his part, which could not be considered under warranty, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.            

3.                 None put into appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.3 despite service, therefore, exparte proceedings initiated against it, vide order dated 24.5.2017.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Aninday Bose Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2  have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                The complainant had purchased one Samsung mobile model J7-Prima from opposite party no.3, vide bill dated 21.11.2016, the copy of which is Ex.C1. As per allegations of the complainant, mobile set purchased by him had not been working properly since the very beginning and the same was having problems of hanging, battery and auto off. He reported the problem to opposite party no.2, the authorized service centre of the company, who upgraded the software. However, after 10 days, the same problems arose alongwith one more problem of automatic calling in engaging. The mobile set was kept by opposite party no.2 for rectification of defects, but the defects could not be rectified. On 16.1.2017, he again approached opposite party no.2, but the service engineer expressed inability to repair the mobile set. It has also been alleged that there was manufacturing defect in the set, because the defects occurred therein repeatedly could not be rectified.

8.                The complainant filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A reiterating his allegations. The opposite parties in their written statement have also admitted the factum of making complaints by the complainant on 11.1.2017 and 21.1.2017. The copy of the job sheet Ex.C2 indicates that there were problems of auto off, heating, hanging, automatic calling in engaging and screen blank. The copy of job sheet Ex.C3 shows that there were problems of battery and auto off. Those problems developed within two months of purchasing the mobile set. The opposite parties have also produced the copies of the same job sheet as Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. As per the written statement of the opposite parties, on 21.1.2017 the service engineer checked the unit and found that the unit was damaged due to mishandling on the part of the complainant. However, Ex.R2 does not show that any such report regarding damage due to mishandling was made by service engineer. No doubt, above the words “repair completed” “labor only”  “parts only” “out of warranty” have been typed, but it has not been specifically written that the repair could not be carried out as the mobile was out of warranty due to damage on account of mishandling by the complainant. Thus, the job sheet does not lend support to the version putforth by the opposite parties. The facts and circumstances indicate that there was some manufacturing defect in the mobile as number of problems developed in the same within short span of two months from the date of its purchase. Under such facts and circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the version putforth by the complainant. The opposite parties were bound to remove the defects completely or replace the mobile set within warranty period and by not doing so they were deficient in service.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 (being manufacturer) to replace the mobile set in question of the complainant with new one of the same value or to refund the cost of the mobile. We further direct the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 14.6.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Veena Rani)     (Anil Sharma)

                               Member               Member