Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/528

Amandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

22 Sep 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:528 dated 23.08.2018.                                                        Date of decision: 22.09.2021. 

 

Amandeep Singh Saran aged 34 years son of Sh. Satnam Singh Saran, Resident of House No.7010/1A, Durga Puri, Haibowal Kalan, Backside Kohli Real Estate, Ludhiana-141001.                                                                                                                                                            ..…Complainant

                             Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., (Head Office) 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Gold Course Road, Sector 44, DLF Phase-V, Gurgaon-122202, Haryana, through its Director/Managing Director/authorized signatory.
2. Choice Communication, Shop No.4930, Jassian Chowk, 22 Feet Road, Durga Puri, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana-141001       , through its authorized person/proprietor/partner.
3. Kiran Mobile Care, B-XIX-545/A&B-XIX-545/C, College Road, Ludhiana-141001 (Service Centre No.0003474199) through its authorized person.                                                                                                                                                …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Amandeep Singh Saran, in person.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate.

For OP2 and OP3          :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 01.12.2017, the complainant purchased one Samsung Galaxy J7 Pro (Black) mobile set for a sum of Rs.20,000/-  vide invoice No.2380 from OP2. The mobile was manufactured by OP1. It was promised by OP2 that the mobile would be repaired free of costs during the warranty period. After some time, the complainant found that the mobile was not working properly and there was some defect in the touch screen and the mobile used to hang also. The complainant approached OP2, who referred him to OP3, which is the service centre of OP1. The officials of OP3 without checking the mobile, returned the same to the complainant that there was neither any problem in the software nor in the touch screen. On 08.07.2018, the complainant again felt some problem in the mobile and he visited the service centre where the employee namely Tarsem Singh retained the mobile and issued service job sheet dated 10.07.2018 and assured the complainant that the defect will be repaired. At that time, the complainant was told that the mobile was under warranty. Thereafter, when the complainant approached OP3 on the given time for delivery of the mobile, the complainant was told that the mobile was out of warranty and the complainant would have to pay a sum of Rs.4800/- as repair charges. OP3 refused to hand over the mobile to the complainant without payment of Rs.4800/-. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and has also caused mental tension and harassment to the complainant. A legal notice dated 18.07.2018was served upon the OPs to replace the defective mobile with new one and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, but to no avail. Instead, OP1 replied to the notice on 31.07.2018 stating that mishandling, physical or electrical damage to the mobile set was not covered under the warranty. Hence the complaint, whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to replace the mobile and be also made to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

2.                Upon notice, OP2 and OP3 did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP1. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP3, it has been pleaded that the mobile set was out of warranty as it had been physically damaged. Display screen was broken due to some external  physical impact. The estimate of repair was given to the complainant by OP3, but he refused to pay the repair charges. It has further been pleaded that the complainant himself has been negligently using the mobile set which led to braking of display screen. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The other averments made in the complaint have been denied being incorrect and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C12 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Anup Kumar Mathur, Director of  Samsung India Electrtonics Pvt. Ltd., Sandhu tower, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R5 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the complainant as well as learned counsel for OP1 and have also gone through record very carefully.

7.                During the course of arguments, the complainant has contended that there was a warranty of one year on the mobile and when the complainant took the mobile for repair on 08.07.2018, OP3 demanded Rs.4800/- from him on account of repair whereas as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, the OPs were duty bound to repair the same without any cost during the period of one year. The complainant has further contended that when he handed over the mobile at the service centre on 08.07.2018, it was perfectly fine and the display screen had not been broken. In this regard, he has referred to the photographs Ex. C8 to Ex. C12 wherein no breakage in the screen is visible. The complainant has further contended that the OPs be directed to either replace or repair the mobile as it was within warranty period and further the OPs be made to pay compensation, as prayed for in the complaint.

8.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP1 has argued that the display screen of the mobile was damaged which was not covered under the warranty as the display screen of the mobile had been broken due to some external physical impact or falling by hand set. The counsel for OP1 has further referred to warranty condition Ex. R1 whereby as per the warranty conditionNo.18, the defects arising out of mishandling, physical damage or electrical damage caused by physical impact is not covered under the warranty. The counsel for OP1 has further referred to the photograph Ex.R3 and Ex. R4 wherein the display screen can be seen to have been damaged on its left side. In these circumstances, the counsel for OP1 contended that the OPs were not under an obligation to replace the display screen free of costs as the same was not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty.

9.                We have weighed the contentions raised by the complainant and the counsel for OP1 and have also gone through the record very minutely.

10.              Though it has been claimed by the complainant that the display screen was perfectly fine at the time the mobile set was submitted for repairs with OP3 on 08.07.2018, but this contention does not appear to be correct. It is mentioned in the ‘Defect Description’ column of job card Ex. C2 itself that the LCD was broken. In the photographs Ex. R3 and Ex. R4 also, the damage to the screen is quite visible. The complainant has also placed on record photographs Ex. C8 to Ex. C12, but in these photographs, the display screen has not been shown properly. Even otherwise, if the display screen had not been broken, the complainant would not have allowed OP3 to mention in the job sheet Ex. C2 that the LCD was broken. The complainant has not placed on record any warranty card. On the contrary, OP1 has placed on record the terms and conditions of the warranty which are Ex. R1 and as per condition No.18 of the warranty conditions, the physical damage by some physical impact or mishandling/misusing/negligence/tempering is not covered under the warranty. Since the display screen was damaged due to some external impact or by way of fall, it was not covered under the policy terms and conditions, the complainant was under an obligation to pay the cost of the repair.

11.              It has been pointed out by the complainant that in reply Ex. C7 dated 31.07.2018 sent by OP1 in response to legal notice, OP1 has offered 25% discount on repair which shows that OPs were at fault otherwise they would not have offered a discount on the cost of repair. Even this contention of the complainant does not appear to be tenable. In para No.3(d) of the reply Ex. C7, it has simply been mentioned by OP1 that the amount of 25% was being offered on repair to the complainant as a gesture of goodwill.

12.              The counsel for OP1 has further stated at bar that the company still sticks to the said discount offered to the complainant as a goodwill gesture. In the given circumstances, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met in this case if the OPs are directed to increase the amount of discount on repairs from 25% to 40%.

13.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is disposed of with an order that the OPs shall repair the mobile and shall give 40% discount on the cost of repair. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

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

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:22.09.2021.

Gobind Ram.