Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/73/2015

Dinesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anmol Watches and electronics Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. M.K.Garg

29 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 73 of 2015

                                                                                                                                 Date of institution : 11.08.2015                                                                                                                                                                           Date of decision    : 29.01.2016

Dinesh Kumar aged about 40 years son of Ram Lal r/o Ward No.13, Mohalla Dhobian, Bassi Pathana, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Anmol Watches and Electronics Pvt. Ltd; SCO No.1012-1013, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor/partner.
2. Samsung Care Centre, C/o Techno Solutions, Ward No.17, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Authorized signatory.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate, New Delhi 110044, through its authorized signatory.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 11 to  14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                             

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                       Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Present :  Sh. M.K. Garg, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                                  OPs exparte.

ORDER

 

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member.

                      Complainant, Dinesh Kumar aged about 40 years son of Ram Lal r/o Ward No.13, Mohalla Dhobian, Bassi Pathana, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 to  14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant purchased a mobile set Samsung Galaxy S3 NEO Model 19300, vide IMEI No.352607060937055 from OP No.1 on 22.08.2014, vide bill No. AW-20642, in cash for a sum  of Rs.19,490/-. OP No.1 gave warrantee/guarantee of one year for any defect in the mobile set and also assured that on any defect in the mobile set, OP No.1 will return the amount of said hand set along with interest or to replace the same with new one of the same price range. After some time from the date of purchase, a fault occurred in the mobile hand set as the same started problem of hanging so many times in a day and automatically switched off and sometimes disconnected the running call.  Thereafter,  the complainant visited the shop of OP No.1 to remove the said defect in the mobile hand set but he advised the complainant to use the mobile for some more time and then this problem will be removed automatically. Thereafter using the said mobile hand set for about two months, the defect was not removed and then the complainant again approached OP No.1 on 16.01.2015 and told about the said defect in the mobile hand set. Then OP No.1 retained the mobile hand set with him and asked the complainant that there is some software problem and assured to deliver the mobile hand set after updating the software from the service centre of Samsung Care and also asked to get the said mobile hand set on 28.01.2015. Thereafter the complainant visited OP No.1, who handed over the mobile hand set to the complainant with assurance that the defect has been removed and the software has been updated. But on using the said mobile hand set the same defects occurred again after 2/3 months. Then the complainant visited OP No.2 and told about the problem, who issued Job Sheet No.4197583826 dated 11.07.2015 and asked the complainant to get the mobile hand set on 13.07.2015 after removing the defect from the same. Then on 13.07.2015 OP No.2 delivered the mobile in question to the complainant and assured that the defect has been removed and the same will not create any problem in future. But the same has not been removed. Thereafter on 28.07.2015 the complainant again visited the shop of OP No.1 and requested to replace the defective mobile hand set with new one of the same price range or to refund the like amount but he totally refused to return the amount of the mobile set or to replace the same with new one, which is great deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the  OPs. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund the price of mobile hand set i.e. Rs.19,490/- and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
3.           Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs but inspite of proper and effective service they deliberately choose not to appear to contest this complaint. Therefore, OPs were proceeded against exparte. This absence on the part of the OPs is nothing but an admission from their own side. Their non-appearance in this Forum only shows that they have nothing to say.

4.                   In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, true copy of bill Ex. C-2, true copy of job sheet dated 11.07.2015 Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence.

5.                   The Ld. counsel for complainant submitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set for Rs.19,490/-, vide bill dated 22.08.2014 Ex. C-2, from OP No.1, who is retailer of OP No.3 i.e. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi, and OP No.2 is the authorized service centre of OP No.3. The Ld. counsel for the complainant pleaded that the complainant visited OP No.1 time and again for rectification of the defects in the mobile hand set but he failed to repair/rectify the problem in the said mobile set despite it being in the warranty period. The OPs have also deliberately refused to replace the mobile set or refund the amount. The OPs have thus committed deficiency in service and caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant, despite knowing the facts that the mobile hand set was found to be defective.

6.                   After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the complainant and the oral argument, we find that there is force in the submissions of the ld. counsel for the complainant. The OPs have time and again failed to repair/rectify the problem in the said mobile set despite it being in the warranty period.

7.                   In view of our above discussions we accept the present complaint and find that the OPs have committed deficiency in service by not repairing or replacing the said mobile set. Hence, we direct the OPs to properly repair/rectify the Mobile Set within a period of 15 days and if the , then replace the same with a new one or refund the amount of Rs.19,490/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Complainant is also held entitled to the damages suffered by him on account of harassment and mental tension. The damages are assessed at Rs. 2000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.1000/-. The damages and the costs may be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It the orders are not complied within the stipulate period, it will carry 9% interest till its realization.

8.                   The arguments on the complaint were heard on 27.01.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:-29.01.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)                          President

 

(Veena Chahal)                        Member

 

      (A.B.Aggarwal)                       Member