Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/46/2015

Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gaba Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

M.P.Nayyar

03 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :     46 of 04.05.2015

Date of Decision:                    :     03.07.2015

Sukhwinder Singh son of Sh.Chaman Lal Resident of Village Binewal, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. Gaba Telecom, Market Gurdwara Singh Sabha, Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahr through its Owner/Manager/Partner/Proprietor.
2. SAMSUNG India Electronics Private Limited, Samsung Service Center, Heera Jattan Mohalla, Nawanshahr through its Proprietor/Manager/Partner.
3. SAMSUNG India Electronics Private Limited, (H.O.), 2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Old Golf Road, Sector – 43, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.SUDHA SHARMA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Sh.M.P. Nayyar, Advocate

For OPs                                   :         Ex parte.

 

ORDER

PER SH.G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

 

1.       Complainant filed present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by alleging that he purchased a Samsung mobile of Model GT-i9192 vide bill dated 17.06.2014 for Rs.18,500/- from OP No.1 for personal use.  At that time Op No.1 assured that mobile belongs to reputed company and same will work properly without creating any trouble.  Assurance was given to replace the mobile in case of defect or trouble.  Since, its purchase the mobile started creating trouble, due to problem of hanging and auto switching off.  This mobile was got checked from Op No.2, who after little upgrading the same, handed over to complainant with the assurance that same will work properly in future.  Again said mobile stopped working properly due to the same problem of hanging and auto switching off as well as of heating.  When complainant approached Op No.1&2 again, then they disclosed about manufacturing defect in the mobile.  OP No.2 changed the motherboard of the new mobile and handed over the same to complainant with “OK” report.  A few days ago, the said mobile set again started creating problem of hanging, heating and restarting.  After keeping the mobile for repair for some time, the same set was returned to complainant with assurance that mobile will work properly.  Despite the repeated assurances as aforesaid and repair, the mobile is not working properly because of manufacturing defect.  Even, Ops remained negligent in providing the services to complainant.  Verbal requests of complainant to remove the defect of the mobile set remained un-headed to.  Complainant claims to have suffered great mental and financial loss, due to which compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- claimed.  Even, directions sought to be issued to OPs to replace the mobile set.

2.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs, but none put in appearance on behalf of Ops No.1&2 despite service.  Notice sent to Op No.3 through registered cover has not been received back, even after lapse of period of 30 days.  After drawing presumption of due service of OP No.3 and on account of none appearance by anyone on behalf of OPs, they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 16.06.2015.        

3.       Affidavit Ex.CW1/A of complainant and photocopies of bill dated 17.06.2014 Ex.C-1, job card dated 07.04.2015 Ex.C-2 were tendered in evidence and thereafter counsel for complainant closed the evidence.

4.       Ex parte arguments of counsel for complainant heard.  File also carefully perused.

5.       Copy of the bill of purchase of Samsung mobile of model GT-i9192 with IME No.357965057527858 from Op No.1 has been produced on the record, which fully establishes claim of complainant qua such purchase, being made by him on 17.06.2014.  In Ex.C-1 itself warranty period of one year from date of purchase is mentioned with further observation that said warranty will be available from the service center of the company (i.e. OP No.2).  Complainant approached Op No.2 for repair of this mobile on 07.04.2015 and the said service center recorded noting on job order Ex.C-2 qua complaint to the effect that set heats up and hangs.  Even, low battery backup was complained as per note recorded on Ex.C-2.  Today, during course of arguments, copy of the job order obtained from internet print produced to show that the service center was even approached on 05.02.2015 by deposit of mobile set.  After repair of the mobile set, the same was handed over to complainant on 06.02.2015 after PBA change vide P. No.1187228288.  Repair code is mentioned as A04 – PCB (i.e. Printed Circuit Board) replacement.  The problem of battery disconnects and of network mentioned as the cause for repair of this set in it.  Thus, virtually statement of complainant suffered through affidavit through Ex.CW1/A is fully believable that he due to defect of hanging of the mobile and its heating up had approached Op No.2 time and again for removal of the trouble in the mobile set.  Despite that the trouble in the set is persisting.  Defect in the PCB itself reflect that software in the mobile set was defective.  As per search on the internet, “PCB means Printed Circuit Board, it controls all the operation flow inside the power bank. A good quality PCB will allow the power bank to charge more and have better durability”. In view of this it is obvious that defective PCB will make the mobile set non operational.

6.       On internet search it is found that PBA change means change of printed board assembly, the circuit board.  Replacement of the computer board (PBA) takes place in case the device not communicating with the cellular service.  This means that case of complainant is fully believable that due to inherent defects in the mobile set, the same gave complained of trouble, requiring repeated repairs.  Despite these repairs, the mobile set is not working properly, even at present as per case of complainant.  So replacement of the mobile set in question is the only appropriate relief, which should be granted in this case.   

7.       This complaint has been filed for replacement of the mobile set within warranty period, which is to lapse on 17.06.2015.  No one from external appearance will be able to detect the inherent manufacturing defects warranting replacement of PCB/PBA.  However, replacement of PCB/PBA took place in this case within span of eight months of purchase of the mobile set by complainant.

8.       In case titled as Hind Motor (I) Ltd & Anr. Tata Motors Vs Lakhbir Singh & another 1(2014) CPJ 120 (NC), it has been laid that in case inherent defect in vehicle requiring major repairs after short span of eight months, found, then the vehicle should be replaced, due to deficiency in services.  Same is the position in this case.  So by applying the analogy of law laid down in the above said case, this complaint deserves to be allowed.

9.       Consequently, this complaint is allowed Ex parte with directions to OPs No.2&3 to deliver a new defect free Samsung Mobile model GT-i9192 to complainant without charging any cost from him. In the alternative OP No.3 through Op No.2 directed to return amount of Rs.18,500/- to complainant with interest @9% per annum from 17.06.2014 till date of payment.  Complainant will deposit the defective mobile set with Op No.2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter Op No.2 by contacting OP No.3 will comply with the above directions within 45 days of receipt of mobile from complainant.  Amount of Rs.2,000/- allowed on account of mental harassment, but Rs.3,000/- allowed as litigation expenses in favour of complainant and against OP No.2&3.            

10.     The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:  03.07.2015

 

  

(Sudha Sharma)                                                           (G.K. Dhir)

Member                                                                         President