Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No.353 of 2019
Date of Institution: 15.04.2019
Date of Final Hearing: 08.08.2022
Date of pronouncement: 28.10.2022
Mangal Chand S/o Shri Naresh Kumar, R/o Takuron Ki Bagri, Ward No.16, H.No.468, Bhiwani,Tehsil & Distt. Bhiwani.
…..Appellant
Versus
General Manager, Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., 20th 24th Floor Two Horizon Centre Golf Course Road,Sector-43, DLF, Phase-V, Gurugram, Haryana.
…..Respondent
CORAM: Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member
Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member
Present:- None for the appellant.
Ms.Simranjeet Singh, counsel for respondent.
ORDER
S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 03 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.
2. The present appeal No.353 of 2019 has been filed against the order dated 28.02.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.150 of 2017, which was dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Samsung S 8 mobile phone from Bhiwani on 03.05.2017 for Rs.57,900/-. The charger and earphone of the cellphone became defective on 05.10.2017. Complainant approached the OP No.2 for replacement of the same. On 05.10.2017, the complainant deposited the mobile set as per the assurance of Mr.Sunil Kumar, Manager of OP No.2. Thereafter complainant asked Ms. Pooja, Technical Assistant of OPs about status of mobile set , but, she did not inform anything till date. In the job sheet, the mobile set was shown dead + some time not working, which was not correct. OPs have returned the mobile set with small scratch on it but the same still suffering the same problem of getting switch off at its own. The warranty of the cellphone was upto 02.05.2018. The OP service centre has formatted the mobile, which was not necessary for the replacement of the earphone and charger. He further alleged that OP service centre has accepted cash payment from the consumers and no POS machine was available with them. The complainant requested the OPs to replace the phone or amount of the mobile phone, but, they did not consider the genuine request of the complainant. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.
4. OP No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 27.11.2017.
5. OP No.3 filed written statement and denying the allegations made by him. The complainant approached the service centre on 05.10.2017 and 12.10.2017 and reported dead, sometime not work, charger and data cable not working problems in the unit. The engineer checked the unit, found that PBA and Tape kit of the unit was burnt and same was got replaced and also software of the unit got updated and unit started working in complete OK condition and after that the complainant never reported any issue. The company provides one year warranty on the unit, warranty means in case of any problem, the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per warranty policy. The warranty becomes void if liquid logged/water logging, physically damage, serial no. missing, tampering and mishandling/ burnt etc. As per the condition of the warranty replacement of product or refund was expressly excluded and warranty covers only repair or replacement of part. It was also submitted that answering OP was and is ready to provide services as preconditions of warranty regarding the unit, so there was no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. Objections about non joinder of necessary party, territorial jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the comp
