Haryana

Kaithal

186/21

Naveen Bidhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amarjeet Singh

09 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.186 of 2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 30.07.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:09.08.2022.

Naveen Bidhan S/o Dilbag Singh r/o H.No.325, Sector-21, HUDA, Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-1, Sector-81, Phase-II, Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. through authorized signatory.
2. Samsung Authorized & Service Centre, 5711, Marwa Complex, KKR Road, near Advait Sawroop Ashram Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Manager.
3. City Heart Mobile Shoppee, Shop No.G-24, Lala Lajpat Rai Complex, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal through its proprietor.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Complainant in person alongwith Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Advocate.   

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                Respondents No.2 & 3 exparte.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Naveen Bidhan-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased a mobile set make SAM-NOTE 10 LITE 355468110575123 from the respondent No.3 for the sum of Rs.37,999/- vide invoice No.1043 dt. 28.07.2020 against the warranty of one year.  It is alleged that the above-said mobile set started giving problem to the complainant as the same started hanging and problem occurred in mother-board.  It is further alleged that the complainant got deposited the said mobile set with the respondent No.2 on 25.06.2021 but despite repair of said mobile set two times, the defects were not removed from the said mobile set.    So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.         Upon notice, the respondent No.1 appeared before this Commission, whereas respondents No.2 & 3 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 01.10.2021 of this commission.  Respondent No.1 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that in fact, the complainant for the first time reported some issue with the service-centre of answering respondent on 25.06.2021; that the complainant reported DISPLAY DAMAGE issue with his handset.  The engineer of the service-centre duly received the handset and thoroughly checked and found that the display of the handset is damaged; that the complainant got agreed for paid repair and the service-centre engineer replaced the display of the handset and the complainant took delivery of handset after repair in O.K. condition.  After that, the complainant once again on 29.06.2021 approached to the service-centre of the answering respondent.  The engineer of the service-centre that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 & Annexure-C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Adv. for the complainant has stated that the complainant purchased a mobile set make SAM-NOTE 10 LITE 355468110575123 from the respondent No.3 for the sum of Rs.37,999/- vide invoice No.1043 dt. 28.07.2020 against the warranty of one year.  It has been argued that the above-said mobile set started giving problem to the complainant as the same started hanging and problem occurred in mother-board.  It has been further argued that the complainant got deposited the said mobile set with the respondent No.2 on 25.06.2021 and respondent No.2 returned it after eight days but the said mobile set is still not properly rectified despite of depositing the same with them twice which clearly indicates that there might have some manufacturing defect in the mobile handset.

7.             Sh. Naveen Bidhan-complainant has stated that he had purchased the aforesaid mobile set on 28.07.2020 with a warranty upto 27.07.2021.  On 25.06.2021 the display screen of the mobile set was got broken which was got replaced by respondent No.3.  The mother board was also changed by respondent No.3.  It is further stated by Sh. Naveen Bidhan-complainant that there was defect in the mobile set which remained overheated all the time and used to hang.  There is apprehension that it can blast at any time which is being happening with many mobile sets of Samsung Company.  Hence, he has argued that he does not want to keep Samsung mobile set any more with him and it was defective before the expiry of period of warranty and he made complaint by time and again to the respondents but despite repair, the mobile set again remained overheated and remained hang all the time.

8.             On the other hand, Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Adv. for the respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed the pleas of complainant and has stated that time and again, the mobile set was got repaired by the respondents free of cost.

9.             After repair also, the aforesaid mobile set has remained over-heated and has hanged all the time.  It was defective during the period of warranty.  Reliance is placed on the authority given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharathi Knitting Vs. D.H.L. Worldwide 1996(4) SCC 704, in which it has been held that in case of specific term in the contract, the parties will be bound by the terms of the contract.  So, the respondents are jointly and severally duty bound to refund the amount of Rs.37,999/- to the complainant within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly with cost.  The cost is assessed as Rs.11,000/- which will be paid by the respondents to the complainant. 

10.       In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:09.08.2022.  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.