Punjab

Sangrur

CC/2/2015

Deepak Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chhabra Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ashish Kumar Grover

19 May 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                      

                                                          Complaint no. 2

Instituted On 01.01.2015

Decided On 19.05.2015                                                                               

Deepak Grover, Proprietor Yuvraj Trading Co. R/o # 110, Partap Nagar, Sangrur.      

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     Chhabra Communication, Opp. Bus Stand, Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.

2.     Gaurav Communication, Street No.2, Near Railway Chowk, Gaushalla Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor/Partner.

3.     Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFC-1 Tower, 6 Nehru Palace, New Delhi through its M.D./ CEO.   

      ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT     Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.1&2  Exparte                     

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3         Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate                    

   

Quorum

                   

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                    K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

ORDER    

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Deepak Grover, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased one Samsung Galaxy Grand Quattro mobile set from the OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.15500/-  vide invoice number 2280 dated 25.12.2013.  At the time of purchase of said mobile set, one year warranty was given by OPs. From the beginning, the said mobile set started giving problems of hanging and less battery backup. The complainant approached the OP No.2 to rectify the problems and to issue the job sheet but OP No.2 refused to issue the same.  On 03.11.2014 the mobile phone stopped working completely by auto switched off.  Back cover of the mobile phone was also not fitted properly.  This time  the OP No.2 issued job sheet to the complainant.  The OP No.2 repaired the phone and returned to the complainant. Again the same problem of less battery backup started on 22.11.2014.  The complainant again approached the OP No.2 who issued another job sheet dated 22.11.2014 but the problem of  hanging and back cover was not mentioned. When the  complainant received his mobile  phone back then he noticed that  the defects were not rectified.  So, the complainant being unsatisfied from the repair of said work took his phone back under protest.  The said  mobile set has manufacturing defect as it got defected number of times. The complainant requested the OPs to replace the defective mobile set with new one as it is within the guarantee period but the OPs refused to do. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs - 

i)      OPs be directed to refund Rs.15500/ - as cost of the mobile set in question along with interest  @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii )    OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment and to pay Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             After receipt of present complaint, notices were sent to the OPs. OPs No.1 and 2 did not appear  and they were proceeded exparte on 10.02.2015 whereas OP no.3 appeared through counsel.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.3, preliminary objections on the grounds of cause of action, territorial jurisdiction, maintainability and misuse of process of law have been taken up.  It is submitted that the complainant submitted his handset with OP No.2 for the first time on 03.11.2014 after 10 months of  its purchase and then on 22.11.2014  on every visit his  problems very duly rectified and handset was delivered back in OK condition to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The performance of the mobile  phone depends upon the physical  handling of the product apart from installation and downloading of various mobile applications, games and other software. The problem charging alleged by the complainant have arisen due to physical mishandling of the handset. On 22.11.2014 the complainant visited  the OP No.2 with the problem of charging but on inspection of handset by the service engineer in the presence of complainant no problem regarding charging was found.  On inspection  it was found that problem has arisen in the charging jack as the complainant might have  been using the mobile phone while putting  the same on charging.  It is submitted that under the warranty OP is  only liable to repair or replace only the defective parts  of the product in question. The complainant has failed to prove on record that hand set in question cannot be repaired, thus he is not entitled for replacement or refund of price.

4.             In support of his case the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence.  On the other hand OP No.3 has tendered document an affidavit Ex.OP3/1 and closed evidence.

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file, we find that the complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy Grand Quattro  mobile set  manufactured by OP No.3 from  the OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.15500/- with a warranty of one year vide  bill number 2280 dated 25.12.2013 which is Ex.C-1 on record.  

6.             It is not disputed by the parties that the mobile set in question started giving problems of hanging and less battery backup for which the complainant approached the OPs on 03.11.2014 and second time on 22.11.2014. The  complainant’s case is that defects in the mobile set  in question could not be rectified though it was within the warranty period. On the other hand, OPs have stated that  the problems in the mobile set in question occurred due to mishandling of the same by the complainant.

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and thoroughly perusing the entire documents produced on record by the parties, we find that it is the specific case of the OP No.3 that problem in the mobile set in question occurred due to mishandling the mobile set by the complainant but surprisingly  the OP no.3 has not produced any cogent evidence in this regard nor has produced the report of an expert which shows that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set.  It is also admitted by the OPs that the handset was submitted by the complainant to the OP No.2  for the first time on 3.11.2014 and then on 22.11.2014 and every visit his problems were duly rectified  and handset was delivered back  in OK condition to the satisfaction of the complainant but again the OP No.3 has not produced any documentary evidence on record which could show that the mobile set in question was received by the complainant from the OP No.3 after repair to his full satisfaction. The OP No. 3 has only produced an affidavit of Shri Shriniwas  Joshi, Senior Manager, Samsung India Electronics Private Limited which is Ex.OP3/1 on record  whereas the  complainant has produced the job sheets  issued by the Ops, report of an expert  and his affidavit  which fully proves the case of the complainant.

8.             Another aspect of the case is that the OPs No.1 and 2 have not come present despite service  to contest the case but they chosen to remain exparte. As such the evidence produced by the complainant has  gone unrebutted.   

9.             In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same model or in the alternative refund the price amount of  the same i.e. Rs.15500/-. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant  a sum of Rs.5000/- as consolidated amount of compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. 

10.           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.

May 19, 2015.

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)       ( Sukhpal Singh Gill)           

Member                Member                    President

 

 

BBS/-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

al>