Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

cc/117/2016

Amandeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arora Mobile Store and others - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                 Consumer Complaint No.117 of 2016

                                                                 Date of institution:  23.12.2016                                        

                                                                   Date of decision   :  02.06.2017

Amandeep Singh aged about 32 years, son of S. Pushpinder Singh, resident of Sanipur Road, Ramdass Nagar, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Arora Mobile Store, Main Bazar, Payal, District Ludhiana through its authorized signatory/proprietor.
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.D.S.Mangat, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                

Sh.G.S.Nagra,counsel for OP No.3.                    

Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 ex-parte.

 

ORDER

Inder Jit, Member

                   Complainant Amandeep Singh aged about 32 years, son of S. Pushpinder Singh, resident of Sanipur Road, Ramdass Nagar, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                The complainant purchased one mobile phone i.e. Samsung Galaxy J2 bearing IMEI No.355259/07/884918/2, 355260/07/884918/0 amounting to Rs.8300/-, vide invoice No.5120 dated 21.12.2015, from OP No.1. One year warranty was given by OP No.1 regarding any technical or mechanical or manufacturing defect in the said mobile hand set. It was also assured by OP No.1 that if in future, any kind of technical or software or hardware problem arises, then the same would be repaired without charging anything.  In the second week of August 2016, the mobile hand set in question started creating trouble i.e. auto off/start and hang problem and also created many other problems to the complainant. Thereafter on 24.09.2016, the complainant visited the office of OP No.2, which is the authorized service centre of the company, and told about the said fault in the mobile hand set. OP No.2 got deposited the mobile handset with it and issued job sheet dated 24.09.2016 and after about one/two hours, the mobile hand set was handed over to the complainant and it was assured to the complainant that the said problem will not create in future.  But after some time, said problems again started creating hindrance to the complainant. Thereafter, on 15.12.2016, the brother of the complainant visited the office of OP No.2 and informed the said problems i.e. auto off, battery backup and hang problem. OP No.2 told the complainant that there is defect in the I.C. of the mobile hand set and it will take time for repair of the same and asked the complainant to collect the mobile hand set after one week. Then after various requests and visits by the brother of the complainant, the mobile hand set was handed over to the brother of the complainant and it was assured that the mobile hand set will not create any problem in future.  But on the next day said problems were again noticed and the complainant again visited the OP No.2 for repair of the mobile handset. OP No.2 informed the complainant that warranty has already expired and the mobile handset has a manufacturing defect and thus it will have to be sent to company and repair charges will be charged from the complainant. The complainant so many times visited the office of OPs but of no use. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.8300/- i.e. price of the mobile hand set and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for damages.

3.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs. But OPs No. 1 & 2 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OPs No. 1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte.

4.                The complaint is contested by OP No.3. In reply to the complaint OP No.3 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as he has concealed the material and true facts from this Forum; the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties; the present complaint is gross abuse of the process of law and is totally false, frivolous and baseless. As regards the fact of the complaint, OP No.3 stated that the complainant visited the service centre on 24.09.2016 & 15.12.2016 with problem of 'Hang & Auto Off' which was duly rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant never visited the service centre with any kind of problem in the mobile hand set. No other defect has been reported during the warranty period. The handset has been perfectly working and there is no such problem as alleged in the complaint. It is further stated that the complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect/inferior quality of any specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence. There is no deficiency in service or breach of contract on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, true copy of invoice Ex. C-2, true copies of job sheet Ex. C-3 & C-4 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose Ex. OP3/1 and closed the evidence.

6.                The Ld. counsel for the complainant pleaded that the complainant visited OP No.2 time and again for rectification of the defects in the mobile handset but he failed to repair/rectify the problem in the said mobile set despite it being in the warranty period. During a visit of brother of the complainant on 15.12.2016 for getting the problems of mobile handset rectified, OP No.2 also informed the brother of the complainant that the mobile hand set has manufacturing defect. The OPs have thus committed deficiency in service and cause mental and physical harassment to the complainant, despite knowing the facts that the mobile handset was found to be defective.

7.                On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.3 submitted that complainant has till date got his handset repaired twice on 24.09.2016 & 15.12.2016 with problem of ' Hang & Auto Off', which was duly rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant never visited any service centre of OP No.2 with any kind of problem in his handset, thus OP No.3 cannot be held liable for deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

8.                After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties 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.

9.                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 free of costs within a period of 15 days and if the problem persists again, then replace the same with a new one or refund the amount of Rs.8,300/- 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.3,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. 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. If the orders are not complied within the stipulate period, it will carry 9% interest p.a. till its realization.

10.              The arguments on the complaint were heard on 26.05.2017 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:02.06.2017                                                                          (A.P.S.Rajput)      

                                                                                                                        President

 

               (Inder Jit)        

                      Member