Haryana

Kurukshetra

144/2017

Gaurav Gulati - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baba Ji Comm - Opp.Party(s)

O.P.Paruthi

05 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.144 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 27.07.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 05.03.2018.

Gaurav Gulati S/o Sh. Tara Chand Gulati, R/o House No.1437, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Babaji Communication, Mohan Nagar, Opposite Telephone Exchange, Kurukshetra through its authorized signatory.
2. Bansal Communication, Samsung Mobile Service Centre, near Geeta Dwar, Pipli Chowk, Kurukshetra through its authorized signatory.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25 Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate New Delhi-110044 through its Manager/authorized signatory. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. O.P.Paruthi, Advocate, for the complainant.

                Ops No.1 & 2 exparte.   

                Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the OP.No.3.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Gaurav Gulati against Babaji Communication and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set make Samsung Galaxy A5 bearing IMEI No.359932065127277 for a sum of Rs.16,000/- from the Op No.1 vide bill No.53 dt. 22.04.2016.  It is alleged that the said mobile set became defective on 29.06.2017 with the problems of display and camera.  It is further alleged that the complainant deposited the said mobile set with the Op No.2 on 29.06.2017 and the Op No.2 charged a sum of Rs.7286.30 paise from the complainant in cash on account of replacement of the display and camera.  It is further alleged that after 2-3 days, the said mobile set again became defective with the same problem and the complainant approached the Op No.2 several times for rectify the problems but the Op No.2 did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the mobile set with the new one or to return the cost of mobile set to the complainant or to rectify the defect of the mobile set and to pay Rs.7286.30 paise to the complainant and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared before this Forum, whereas Ops No.1 & 2 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 04.09.2017.  Op No.3 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant in regards to his complaint has approached the answering Op on 26.06.2017 and reported some problem in his unit; that that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 in evidence and thereafter closed the evidence.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.3 tendered affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.  

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

6.             From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 22.04.2016 for the sale consideration of Rs.16,000/-. From the perusal of Job Sheet, Ex.C2, it is clear that the unit became defective on 29.06.2017 after the warranty/guarantee period.  No doubt, the mobile set in question is not within warranty period but on 29.06.2017, the said mobile set was repaired by the Op No.3 and the payment of Rs.7286.30 paise was received by Op No.3 but even thereafter, the mobile set is not working.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it repaired from Op No.3 free of cost.

7.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and we direct the OP No.3 to repair the mobile set of the complainant free of cost.  The order; be complied within a period of 30 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.3.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  

Announced in open court:

Dt.:05.03.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member

ng 1: