Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1503/2015

Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chhabra Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Jagtar SIngh

04 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

         

                                                Complaint No.  1503

                                                Instituted on:    19.11.2015

                                                Decided on:       04.07.2016

 

Rajinder Singh son of Karnail Singh, resident of Rampura, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Chhabra Communication through its Proprietor, Opp. Bus Stand Sangrur.

2.             M/s. Gaurav Communication, Authorised Samsung Care Centre through its Prop./Manager, Near Railway Chowk, Gaushala Road, Sangrur.

3.             Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, B-1, Sector 81, Phase-2 Noida District Gautam Budda Nagar (UP) through its Managing Director.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Jagtar Singh, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :               Exparte.

For OP No.3             :               Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Rajinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Samsung Dual core mobile set bearing IMEI number 356894/06/311239/1 for Rs.8000/- vide invoice dated 1.12.2014 from OP number 1, which was having one year warranty/guarantee. It is further averred that after two months of its purchase, the mobile set started automatically switch off and stopped working and there was also signal/network problem therein, as such, the complainant approached the Ops, who found that there was software problem. It is further averred that after two/three months, the same problem again occurred.  It is further averred that the complainant approached OP number 2 on 29.8.2015 and apprised about the auto off and start problem, the OP number 2 kept the mobile set and issued the job sheet.  It is further averred that on the next day, the mobile set was returned to the complainant with an assurance that the same is free from any defect. It is further stated that on 1.9.2015 again the same problem arose in the mobile set and complainant approached OP number 2, who after checking told that the mobile set will be repaired by the expert mechanic and told to come after two/three days, but when the complainant again approached OP number 2 after three days, the same problem was therein in the mobile set, as such, the complainant requested the Ops to replace the mobile set with a new one, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund him the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.8,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 1 and 2 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 and 2 were  proceeded exparte on 11.01.2016.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint of the complainant is baseless, devoid of any merits whatsoever and without any cause of action, that the Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint,  that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that  there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question, as such the same should be dismissed. It is further stated that the handset of the complainant was physically damaged when last received on 16.9.2015 with the OP number 2, due to physical damage it was not covered under warranty and repair was on chargeable basis, but the complainant did not approve the estimate of repairs, as such the hand set was returned to the complainant without repairs. It is further stated that the performance of the mobile set depends upon the physical handling of the product apart from compatibility of downloaded mobile applications and games. It is stated further that the mobile set of the complainant is physically damaged and is not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 1 for Rs.8000/-. However, it is denied that the complainant ever approached OP number 2 with the problem of auto switch off after a period of two months of its purchase.  It is stated that first of all the job sheet was issued to the complainant on 29.8.2015 and the mobile set was returned to the complainant after due repairs. However, it is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as the mobile set is physically damaged and it is not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 copies of job sheets, Ex.C-3 copy of bill, Ex.C-4 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced  Ex.OP3/1  and Ex.OP3/2 affidavits, Ex.OP3/3 copy of expert report dated 12.5.2016 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-3 is the copy of the invoice dated 01.12.2014 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.8,000/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 1.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became defective as there was auto switch off and display problem and as such the complainant approached the OP number 2 on 01.09.2015, as is evident from the copy of job order sheet issued by OP number 2, Ex.C-1, but the problems in the mobile set could not be removed permanently. Further Ex.C-2 is the copy of job order sheet issued by OP number 2 mentioning the same problem in the mobile set. It is an admitted fact that the mobile set in question was repaired by OP number 2, which was having auto off problem.  In the present case, the OP number 1 and 2 choose to remain exparte and even did not appear to deny the allegations of the complainant levelled in the complaint. Further the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex.C-4 to support his contention.  The learned counsel for OP number 3 has also produced the report of Harpreet Dass, Service Engineer of the OP number 2 Ex.OP3/3 and his affidavit Ex.OP3/2 wherein he has stated that he checked the mobile set and found that “earlier the complainant approached the service centre and thereafter, I updated the software of the mobile set and I returned back the mobile set to the complainant in OK condition. Thereafter, the complainant again approached our service centre with the problem of AUTO OFF AND HANG and thereafter, on 3.9.2015, I rectified the said problem by replacing the PBA Board of the hand set and handed over the mobile set to the complainant in OK condition. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of service centre.  Thereafter, our service centre again received the hand set of the complainant and after inspection, I found that there was physical damage to the handset of the complainant, so the hand set was/is not covered under the warranty and the repair was only on the chargeable basis.” It is worth mentioning here that a bare perusal of the report as well as in the affidavit Ex.OP3/3 and Ex.OP3/2, clearly shows that they are not independent one rather the same are only in support of the OPs, as the expert says that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Further it is not specifically mentioned in the report that that on what date and time he checked the mobile set in question. As such, we feel that the expert report as well as the affidavit of Shri Harpreet Dass are not at all helpful to the case of the OPs and it seems that the affidavit as well as the expert report have been prepared in very casual manner.  In the circumstances, it is clear that the mobile set in question supplied to the complainant is defective one which needs further repairs which are to be conducted by the OPs.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 2 and 3 to conduct the necessary repairs and make the mobile set in working order without charging any thing from the complainant. The OPs number 2 and 3 shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment as well as  litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 4, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member