Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/4/2018

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anmol Watches & Electronics P Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.K.Joshi

24 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 4 of 2018

                                                     Date of institution : 08.02.2018                                                          

                                                        Date of decision    : 24.05.2018

Gurpreet Singh aged about 24 years, son of Jeet Singh, resident of Mohalla Behlolpuri, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Ltd. having its shop at SCO No.1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.
2. Techno Solutions, Ward No.17, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its authorized signatory.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-1, Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar (U.P) through its authorized signatory/Chairman/M.D.

 …..Opposite Parties

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

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                              

  Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh.S.K.Joshi, Adv. for complainant.

                      Opposite Party No.1 exparte.

Sh. G.S.Nagra, Adv. for OPs No.2 & 3.

ORDER

 

By Inder Jit, Member

                      Complainant, Gurpreet Singh aged about 24 years, son of Jeet Singh, resident of Mohalla Behlolpuri, 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 J7 Prime Gold 3  from OP No.1 amounting to Rs.16900/-,  vide invoice/bill No. AWN-28525 dated 23.02.2017. At the time of purchase of said mobile hand set, OPs No.1 gave warrantee of one year for any technical or mechanical defect in the mobile hand set and also assured that if in future, any kind of technical and software or  hardware problem arises, then the same would be replaced without charging anything.  In the second week of January 2018, the said mobile handset started creating trouble i.e. red dot on LCD and sub key problem some time and sensor not working and hang problem etc. Thereafter on 13.01.2018, the complainant visited office of OP No.2, who is the authorized service centre, and told about the said fault in the mobile handset. OP No.2 got deposited the mobile hand set with him and issued job sheet dated 13.01.2018.  Then after two days i.e on 15.01.2018, the mobile hand set in question was handed over to the complainant with the assurance that the said problem will not create in future.  But after some time, the said problems again started creating hindrance to the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant again visited the office of OP No.2 and told about the said problems but OP No.2 refused to entertain the complainant without any reasonable cause by stating that these problems cannot be solved by them as the same are the manufacturing defects.  There is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and also shows unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.16,900/- i.e. sale price of the mobile hand set in question and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages including punitive damages.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs but OP No.1 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte.
4.  The complaint is contested by OPs No. 2 & 3, who filed joint written reply. In reply to complaint, OP No.2 & 3 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant has concealed the material and true facts from this Forum and the complainant has not come with clean hands; the present complaint is gross abuse of the process of law and no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and against the OPs No.2 & 3.  As regards the facts of the complaint, OPs No. 2 & 3 stated that complainant visited office of OP No.2 on 13.01.2018 and submitted his mobile with reported problem of ' red dot on LCD, sub key problem sometime sensor not working'. OP No.2 inspected the handset and duly rectified the problem by changing the 'Display' and handset was delivered back to complainant in OK condition. The complainant after thoroughly checking the mobile handset in question took the delivery and signed the satisfaction note on the job sheet. Thereafter the complainant has never submitted his handset for any kind of repair with OP No.2 till date, which shows that handset in question is perfectly working and is being used by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or breach of contract on the part of OPs No. 2 & 3.  The OPs or its service centre has never denied after sales services and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant as per warrantee terms and conditions. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.  In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, bill/invoice Ex. C-2, true copy of terms and condition Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal, OPs No. 2 & 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Anindya Bose Ex. OP2/1 and closed the evidence.
6.  Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased the said mobile on 23.02.2017 for Rs.16,900/- carrying warranty of one year from the date of purchase of the mobile. The mobile, however, started creating many problems like red dot on LCD, sub key problem, failure of sensor working and hang problem etc. during the second week of January 2018. The complainant approached the service centre i.e. OP No.2 on 13.01.2018 and handed over the said mobile for its rectification. On 15.01.2018, the mobile was given back to complainant duly rectified. But it again started creating the same problems. This time, when complainant approached OP No.2, it refused to entertain the complainant saying that the defects are manufacturing defects and hence cannot be repaired. The Ld. counsel prayed for refund of price of the mobile i.e. Rs.16,900/- alongwith compensation etc.
7.  The Ld. counsel for OP No.2 & 3, argued that the complainant visited OP No.2 only once on 13.01.2018 and the mobile was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. He also argued that the handset requires proper handling for its proper working. He further argued tht the complaint be dismissed with heavy costs.
8. We have gone through the pleadings, written arguments, evidence produced and oral submissions addressed by the Ld. counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the complainant must have visited OP No.2 second time with the reoccurrence of  same problems in the mobile handset, but OP No.2 refused to entertain him saying the defects in the mobile were manufacturing defects. In the light of manufacturing defects, OP No.2 should have guided the complainant as to how to get the handset replaced as per terms and conditions but it did not do so which amounts to deficiency in service. OP No.2 should have prepared the expert report regarding manufacturing defects in the handset and proceeded further for its replacement. The OPs could not place on record any evidence that the handset was not properly handled by the complainant.
9. In view of the above, we accept this complaint and direct OPs No. 2 & 3 to examine the mobile handset in question thoroughly and repair it to the entire satisfaction of the complainant by replacing the defective parts, if any, free of cost,- handset being in warranty period when became problematic. If the mobile handset is beyond repairs and needs to be replaced, then replace it with a new one or refund its costs i.e.   Rs.16,900/-. The complainant is also held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3000/- to be paid by OPs No. 2 & 3. This order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10.  The arguments on the complaint were heard on 16.05.2018 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:24.05.2018