DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.507 of 05-10-2012
Decided on 15-01-2013
Harbhajan Singh aged about 36 years r/o # 31261, St.No.10/3 Paras Ram Nagar Bathinda, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Sushil Telecom, Authorized Show Room, Samsung Mobiles, Kanwal Cinema Road (Railway Road), near Dr. S.K Gupta Hospital, Bathinda, through its prop./owner(Deleted).
2.Shri Ram Tele Services, C-62, Samsung Service Request, SCF 62, 1st floor, near Hotel Amsun, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda, through its authorized representative (now at Gole Diggi, Backside BSNL Exchange).
3.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-1, Sector 81, Phase-2 Noida, Distt. Gotaum Budh Nagar (U.P), through its Managing Director.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Harbhajan Singh, complainant in person.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Kuljit Pal Sharma, counsel for opposite party No. 3.
Opposite party No.1 deleted.
Opposite party No.2 ex-parte.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that on the allurement the opposite party No.1 the complainant has purchased one mobile handset Samsung C 3222 Model bearing No.3580410422022855 from them by making the cash payment of Rs.3700/- vide invoice No.3844 dated 17.12.2011. Since the date of the purchase of the said mobile handset, it created problem at the time of start of its functioning and if starts functioning it disconnects within few seconds without completion of call and there were many unwanted lines on the screen of the said mobile handset which created difficulties to the complainant to use it and due to these defects, he approached the opposite party No.1 and narrated all the problems in the said mobile handset and asked them to replace it with new one as assured by him but they refused to replace the said mobile handset with one new one and linger the matter on one or the other pretext and later on they asked him to approach the opposite party No.2, the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.3 at Bathinda. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 29.8.2012 and they after checking the said mobile handset asked him to take the delivery of the same on 31.8.2012. The opposite party No.2 delivered the said mobile handset to the complainant by saying the defects has been removed and the said mobile handset is working properly. But the defects were not removed and it revealed that the said mobile handset was returned to the complainant in the same condition in which he handed over it to the opposite party No.2. On 1.9.2012 the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 and lodged the complaint and they have taken the said mobile handset in their custody and asked him to take delivery of the same on 9.9.2012. This time again the said mobile handset was not repaired and was returned to the complainant as it is. On 11.9.2012 the complainant again visited the opposite party No.2 and they assured him that the defects will be removed this time and issued the job sheet dated 11.9.2012 but again the said mobile handset was not repaired rather they misbehaved with him and used un-parliamentary language against him and since then the said mobile handset is lying with them. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties either to replace the the said mobile handset with new one or to refund its price alongwith cost and compensation.
2. The opposite party No.1 has been got deleted by the complainant from the array of the opposite parties and suffered the statement to this effect.
3. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.2 despite service of summons has failed to appear before this Forum. Hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.2.
4. The opposite party No.3 after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and pleaded that the complainant has concealed the material and necessary information that their obligation under the warranty is to set right the said mobile handset by repairing or replacing the defective parts. As and when the complainant has brought his mobile handset with the opposite party No.2, the same was duly repaired to his satisfaction and lastly on 11.9.2012. The opposite party No.2 has generated the job sheet and told the complainant that the said mobile handset would be set right without any charges as the same is within the warranty period and he can collect the same after 2 days. The said mobile handset was duly repaired and has been set right but the complainant has not turned up to collect the same despite the repeated calls. The said mobile handset is fully operational and is lying with the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.3 through this reply call upon the complainant to collect his mobile handset from the opposite party No.2. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irrepairable manufacturing defect or inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of the expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of his allegations. The opposite party No.3 denied that the complainant complained to the opposite party No.2 on 29.8.2012 and they after checking the said mobile handset asked him to take delivery of the same on 31.8.2012. The true facts are that the said mobile handset was working properly. The complainant has purchased the said mobile handset on 17.12.2011 and for the first time he approached the opposite party No.2 on 11.9.2012 i.e. 9 months after its purchase.
5. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
7. Admitted facts of the parties are that the complainant has purchased one mobile handset Samsung C 3222 Model bearing No.3580410422022855 from the opposite party No.1 by making the cash payment of Rs.3700/- vide invoice No.3844 dated 17.12.2011.
8. The submissions of the complainant are that since the date of the purchase of the said mobile handset, there was some defect in the same as it was not working properly and it created problem at the time of start of its functioning and if starts its functioning it disconnects within few seconds without completion of call and there are many unwanted lines on the screen of the said mobile handset which create difficulties to the complainant to use it and due to this he approached the opposite party No.1 and narrated the all defects. On asking of the opposite party No.1 the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 29.8.2012 and they after checking the said mobile handset asked him to take the delivery of the same on 31.8.2012. On 1.9.2012 the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 and lodged the complaint and they have taken the said mobile handset and asked him to take delivery of the same on 9.9.2012. On 11.9.2012 the complainant again visited the opposite party No.2 and they kept the said mobile handset with them and has issued the job sheet dated 11.9.2012 but again the same was not repaired and since then the said mobile handset is lying with the opposite party No.2.
9. The submissions of the opposite party No.3 is that whenever the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 for the repair of his mobile handset, the same has been duly repaired by them. In para No.2 of the preliminary objection the opposite party No.3 stated that their obligation under the warranty is to set right the said mobile handset by repairing or replacing the defective parts. As and when the complainant has brought his mobile handset with the opposite party No.2, the same was duly repaired to his satisfaction and lastly on 11.9.2012. The opposite party No.2 has generated the job sheet and told the complainant that the said mobile handset would be set right without any charges as the same is within the warranty period and he can collect his mobile handset after 2 days. The complainant has not placed on file the expert evidence to prove that there is any inherent manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset and at the same time the opposite party No.3 in its reply on merits in para No.4 denied that the the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 29.8.2012 and they after checking the said mobile handset asked him to take delivery of the same on 31.8.2012 rather they have specifically mentioned that the complainant for the first time has approached the opposite party No.2 on 11.9.2012 i.e. 9 months after the purchase of the said mobile handset i.e. on 17.12.2011. The opposite party No.2 never misbehaved with the complainant or used un-parliamentary language.
10. A perusal of job sheet Ex.C3 dated 11.9.2012 shows that 'auto charging white display' and in Ex.C4 dated 29.8.2012 also show the defect description 'WHITE DISPLAY'. The job sheet dated 29.8.2012 falsifies the version of the opposite parties that the complainant for the first has approached the opposite party No.2 on 11.9.2012. When on 29.6.2012 the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 there was defect of white display and that remained till 11.9.2012 which can be clearly seen in Ex.C3. Thus the contention of the complainant that since the date of the purchase of the said mobile handset, it started creating problem and despite taking it to the opposite parties repeatedly they have failed to rectify the defects, moreover the said mobile handset is still lying with the opposite party No.2.
On the other hand the opposite parties submitted that the complainant has not placed on file any expert evidence to prove that there is any inherent manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset hence he is not entitled to get the refund or replacement of the mobile in question with new one.
11. From the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file we are of the considered view that there are defects regarding the white display besides other defects in the said mobile handset and despite repeated visits of the complainant to the service station i.e. the opposite party No.2, the said defects have not been rectified till date. Moreover the said mobile handset is still lying with the opposite party No.2 and they have not make any effort to sent the same to the complainant at his address. The said mobile handset is still within the warranty period given by opposite party No.3.
12. As discussed above it is clear that the complainant has suffered harassment in the hands of the opposite parties since the purchase of the said mobile handset. Moreover the opposite parties have not placed on file any report or affidavit of their service engineer to prove that there is no manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset, so as mentioned above there are defects regarding the display, mobile disconnects within few seconds without completion of call and unwanted lines are seen on the screen etc. Although the complainant has also not placed on file any expert evidence yet he is entitled for the replacement or refund of the price of the said mobile handset as the defects have not been rectified by the opposite party No.2.
13. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.1. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are directed to refund the amount of the said mobile handset i.e Rs.3700/- to the complainant. The compliance of this order be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
In case of non-compliance the interest @ 9% per annum will yield on the amount of Rs.3700/- till realization.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
15-01-2013
Vikramjit Kaur Soni
President
Amarjeet Paul
Member
Sukhwinder Kaur
Member
