Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1011/2015

Seema Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chhabra Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ajay Aggarwal

01 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  1011

                                                Instituted on:    08.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       01.03.2016

 

 

 

Seema Goyal aged 37 years wife of Vinod Goyal, resident of H.No.517, Street No.9, Outside Nabha Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Chhabra Communication, Opposite Bus Stand, Sangrur.

2.             Gaurav Communication, Authorised service Centre, Samsung India Limited, Gaushala Road, Sangrur.

3.             Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. B-1, Section 81, Phase 2, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Ajay Aggarwal, Adv.

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

For OP No.1&2         :               Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Seema Goyal, 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 Galaxy core prime GT-360H mobile phone for Rs.9500/- having colour charcoal gray vide invoice number 8803 dated 8.1.2015 from OP number 1 for her personal use which was having one year warranty.  It is further averred in the complaint that after a few days of its purchase, the mobile set started to give problem at the time of switching on and when the mobile phone was switched on it has problem of auto switch off after some time and a few minutes after the switching on the mobile phone stopped receiving signals,  as such, the complainant approached OP number 2, who is the authorised service provider of the OP, but the Ops failed to do anything saying that the mobile in question is having manufacturing defect. It is further stated that the complainant also got checked the mobile set in question from one Damanjit Singh proprietor of Singh Connectivity, Sangrur, who also stated the same and also submitted is affidavit dated 24.8.2015 along with the report.  It is further stated that the complainant again approached the Ops about the defects in the mobile set in question, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed either to replace the mobile set with a new one or to refund the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.9500/- 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 10.11.2015.

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as the complainant has concealed the material and true facts  and the hand set of the complainant was last submitted with the OP number 2 on 4.8.2015 with the problem of ‘network’, that the complainant has concealed the true facts, that the complainant is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the CPA, that the performance of the mobile set depends upon the physical handling of the product apart from compatibility of downloaded mobile applications and games, that the Ops through this reply requested the Hon’ble Forum to direct the complainant to submit his hand set before the Forum for inspection and independent expert opinion regarding the exact condition of the hand set.  It is further averred that the complainant never approached the service centre after 4.8.2015 with any kind of problem in the mobile set and that the complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention.  On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 1 vide bill dated 8.1.2015 for Rs.9500/-.  It has been denied that the mobile set in question started to give problems after some days of its purchase. It is further stated that the complainant never approached OP number 2 and told about any problem in the mobile set.  However, it has been admitted that the complainant approached OP number 2 twice firstly on 24.7.2015 with problem of ‘network’ and the said problem was duly rectified and thereafter on 4.8.2015, but there was no problem in the mobile set at that time.  It has been stated that the report produced by the complainant has been prepared with biased mind and the same cannot be relied upon.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of report, Ex.C-3 affidavit, Ex.C-4 copy of receipt dated 15.12.2015, Ex.C-5 copy of bill,Ex.C-6 copy of mobile box, Ex.C-7 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-10 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-11 AD slip and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced  Ex.OP3/1 affidavit 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-5 is the copy of the invoice dated 08.01.2015 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.9500/-, 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 and the Ops that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became defective as there was signal problem and as such the complainant approached the OP number 2 for the first time on 24.7.2015 and on 4.8.2015 as admitted by the OPs in their written reply, but the problems in the mobile set could not be removed. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that on 15.12.2015 the mobile set in question was received by Shri Kulwant Singh of the OPs in the presence of  Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate, the learned counsel for OP number 3 for checking, but till the date of arguments neither the mobile set in question was returned to the complainant nor any report to that effect was produced on record by the OPs to show that the mobile set in question is not defective one.  In the circumstances, it is clear that the mobile set in question supplied to the complainant is defective one which is beyond repairs.  Ex.C-4 is the copy of the receipt issued by the Ops regarding the receipt of the mobile set in question.  Ex.C-7 is the copy of the legal notice served upon the OPs by the complainant through his counsel and Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-10 are the copies of the postal receipts.  The OP number 3 has produced only the affidavit.  Further to support his contention, the complainant has also produced on record the expert report dated 24.8.2015, Ex.C-2 of Shri Damanjit Singh of Singh Connectivity and Ex.C-3 is his affidavit, which clearly shows that the mobile set in question is having manufacturing defect.    On the other hand, the Ops have not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to rebut the expert report or that the mobile set in question does not suffer from any manufacturing defect, despite the fact that the Ops took the mobile set from the complainant for checking on 15.12.2015. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that it is a clear cut case of supply of defective mobile set to the complainant, which is beyond repairs.   As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  It is on the file that the mobile set in question is already with the OPs, as such, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to refund the amount of the mobile set to the complainant.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 2 and 3 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.9500/- being the cost of the mobile set.  The OPs number 2 and 3 shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.2500/- on account of 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.

                March 1, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member