Punjab

Sangrur

CC/209/2016

Rupesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajan Kapil

05 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 209                                                                                         

                                                                  Instituted on:  29.01.2016                                                                                    

                                                                Decided on:    05.08.2016

 

Rupesh Sharma son of Ram Bhagat, resident of Village Hareri ( Andheri) Tehsil and District Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.M/s Chhabra Communications, Above Singla Medical hall, Outside Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through its authorized signatory.

 

2.Gaurav Communications, Street No.2, Near Railway Chowk, Gaushalla Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.

 

3.Samsung India Electronic Limited, 7th & 8th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 through its Managing Director.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Rajan Kapil  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1          :      Shri  Ashish Grover,  Advocate                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.2           :     Exparte.

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.3           :     Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate.

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member       

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Rupesh Sharma complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Samsung mobile bearing Model No. GT-I 9060 I from OP No.1 for Rs.9000/- vide bill no. 3022 dated 05.08.2015 under one year warranty. After the purchase, said mobile set started giving problems of touch panel and display for which the complainant approached the OP No.1 who advised to approach the OP No.2. Then the complainant approached OP No.2  who kept the mobile phone  and  returned the same to the complainant after replacing the touch panel but the problem persisted. Again on 03.12.2015 OP No.2 was approached who issued receipt number 421 to the complainant but OP No.2 failed remove the defects. Thereafter the complainant got checked the cell phone from Kamal Communication who gave its report  mentioning that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile set.  Till today  neither the cell phone has been repaired nor it has been replaced. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

 

i)      OPs be directed to refund Rs.9000/-  as price of the cell phone along with interest @18% per annum till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.25000/-  on account of deficiency in service.,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no.2 did not appear and as such OP no.2 was proceeded exparte on 30.03.2016. OP No.1 had appeared through Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate but despite taking sufficient opportunities no reply was filed by the OP no.1 and ultimately on 11.05.2016 opportunity to file reply by OP No.1 was closed by order of the Forum.   

 

3.             In reply filed by OP No.3, preliminary objections on the grounds of concealment of true facts, territorial jurisdiction, abuse of process of law, cause of action and misuse of process of law have been taken up. On merits, purchase of mobile set in question under one year warranty subject to warranty terms and conditions is admitted.  It is denied that any assurance to replace the handset under warranty is given. It is denied that after three months of purchase the mobile set was giving problem of touch panel and display. It is denied that the OP No.2 issued any receipt number 421 to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention that no such alleged receipt is ever issued by the service centre if handset is retained by OP no.2 for repair then only job sheet is issued and no receipt is ever issued. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.  

 

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP No.3 has tendered documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/3 and closed evidence.  No evidence has been produced by the OP No.1.

 

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.3, we find that the complainant had purchased  a mobile phone of Samsung Mobile bearing model No. GT-I 9060 I from OP No.1  on 05.08.2015 for an amount of Rs.9000/- under warranty of one year which is evident from  retail invoice number 3022 dated 05.08.2015 which is Ex.C-2 on record. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that from the very beginning of purchase, the mobile phone started giving problems of touch panel and display for which the complainant approached the OPs but the problems could not be solved.  To prove her version, the complainant has produced on record copy of retail invoice Ex.C-2 and copy of job sheet/ receipt number 421 dated 03.12.2015 Ex.C-3. The complainant has also produced report of an expert namely Kamalpreet, Singh proprietor of Kamal Communication Sangrur Ex.C-4 along with his affidavit Ex.C-5  wherein  Mr. Kamalpreet Singh has opined that  after  checking the said mobile set of the complainant,  he found that mobile set  is having touch panel problem and display problem  and has a manufacturing defect in the mobile set  which cannot be repaired. Against  the report of expert of the complainant, the OPs has  also produced report of an expert namely Kulwant Singh, Service Engineer working with M/s Guarav Communication Gaushala Road, Sangrur, OP no.2  wherein he  has stated that  after receiving the mobile set he inserted the SIM card  in the mobile set and used the mobile set  and during that period he received calls and also made calls from the mobile set in question. During that period  he did not find any problem/ defect in the mobile set as alleged by the complainant and as such there is no manufacturing defect or any other defect in the mobile set as alleged by the complainant  and the mobile set is in OK condition. Learned counsel for the complainant has specifically argued that Kulwant Singh is working with M/s Gaurav Communication and being a paid employee he would support  the contention of M/s Gaurav Communication which is opposite party number 2 in the present case. We find merit in this argument because Mr. Kulwant Singh is not an independent person.

 

6.             The OP no.2 did not appear to contest the case of the complainant rather chosen to remain exparte.  Moreover, the OP No.1, from whom the mobile set in dispute was purchased by the complainant did not file any reply or documentary evidence to contest the case of the complainant though it appeared in the  case through Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate .  In our opinion, it is also duty of the OP no.1 from whom the set in dispute was purchased to take  appropriate step to redress the grievance of the complainant but the OP no.1 has also totally failed to do so. As such, the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted.   

 

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we find  that the mobile set  in question  developed  defects within the warranty period which could not be removed by the OPs meaning thereby there is manufacturing defect in it.  In this manner,  the OPs are deficient in service and as such we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable  to refund an amount                                                                                                                                                                              Rs.9000/- which is price amount of the mobile set in dispute  to the complainant subject to return of the defective mobile set in question along with all accessories of it. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                August 5, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)                                   (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member                                          President