Punjab

Sangrur

CC/988/2015

Harpinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deepak Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh K.Garg

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                     

                                                Complaint No.  988

                                                Instituted on:    03.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       15.07.2016

 

Harpinder Singh son of S. Paviter Singh, resident of Near Society Wali Gali, Amargarh, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             Fateh Telecom (Formerly Deepak Telecom) Baba Gian Dass Market, Nabha Road, Amargarh, District Sangrur through its Prop/partner.

2.             Samsung Mobile, Authorised Service Centre, near Railway Station, Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Manager/ Authorised Signatory.

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

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Mukesh Garg, 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 Harpinder 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 mobile set Dual model mobile model Galaxy Star-GT_S7262 having IMEI number 352157/06/833325/3 and 352158/06/833325/1 for Rs.4850/- vide invoice dated 19.01.2015 from OP number 1, which was having one year warranty/guarantee. It is further averred that in the month of August, 2015, there was problem of display in the mobile set, as such the complainant approached the OP number 1, who advised the complainant to approach OP number 2 and the complainant approached OP number 2 and apprised about the problem in the mobile set, but the OP number 2 refused to do any repair and asked that the mobile set has already been repaired three times and it cannot be repaired free of cost. 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.4850/- 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 2 did not appear despite service, as such OP number  2 was   proceeded exparte n 04.11.2015. Though the service of the OP number 1 was effected through publication in the newspaper ‘Spokesman”, but OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 was also proceeded exparte on 10.03.2016.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed as the hand set in question is a second hand refurnished hand set sold by OP number 1 on 19.10.2015 and the complainant is a second purchaser of the mobile set. Earlier one Mr. Pabbi Singh purchased the hand set in question on 31.5.2014 from M/s. Ashu Telecom, Rampura by paying Rs.6200/- and on 6.6.2014 the hand set was found defective and new set was issued to Mr. Pabbi Singh and this hand set was refurbished and again given to the distributor as a Samsung repaired handset . On the refurbished hand set , there is a warranty of only six months.  It is stated further that the performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product by each person. It is stated that the present mobile set is not covered under the warranty as it is a refurnished hand set and warranty is only for six months. On merits, the sale and purchase of the mobile set by the complainant is admitted and the remaining allegations of the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of bill dated 19.1.2015, Ex.C-2 copy of job history, Ex.C-3 photograph, Ex.C-4 copy of certificate, Ex.C-5 expert report dated 20.5.2015, Ex.C-6 affidavit of expert, Ex.C-7 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-8 detail of mobile, Ex.C-9 mobile box and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit of Gaurav Kumar along with annexure Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 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-1 is the copy of the invoice dated 19.01.2015 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.4800/-, 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 display problem within the warranty period, as such the complainant approached the OP number 2 and OP number 2 after checking refused to repair it on the ground that the mobile set is out of warranty as it was having only six months warranty as the mobile set is refurnished one.  But, the stand of the complainant is that the complainant purchased the mobile set from OP number 1 and the OP number 1 did not apprise the complainant that the mobile set is refurbished one and it contains only six months warranty, rather the OP number 1 gave a warranty of one year.  Whereas the stand of the complainant is that the OP number 1 gave a warranty of one year for the mobile set in question. To support such a contention, the complainant has produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-7, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the OP number 1 gave a warranty of one year. Further the complainant has also produced the expert report Ex.C-5 which is supportedby the affidavit of Binder Singh Ex.C-6. It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 1 chose to remain exparte and even did not appear despite publication in the newspaper ‘Rojana Spokesman’ on 26 February, 2016.  The fact remains that the mobile set in question went out of order in the month of August, 2015, whereas the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 19.1.2015 and as per the Ops number 2 and 3 it was having a warranty of only six months, meaning thereby the mobile set became defective after the warranty period of six months.  But, the case of the complainant is that he purchased the mobile set from OP number 1 and a warranty/guarantee of one year was given by the Op number 1, but the OP number 1 did not come present to deny this allegation of the complainant that the warranty was for one year.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case, where the Op number 1 is deficient in rendering service by not getting repaired the mobile set within the warranty period of one year as proved on record by the complainant in the present case.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OP number 1 to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.4850/- being the cost of the mobile set, however, subject to returning of the old mobile set to the Op number 1 by the complainant along with all the accessories, if any. The OP number 1 shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4000/- 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 15, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member