DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 124
Instituted on: 03.04.2017
Decided on: 21.06.2017
Yash Arora son of Shri Faqir Chand Arora C/o New Arora General Store, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
Gaurav Communications, Authorized Service Centre of Samsung Mobiles, Opposite PWD Rest House, Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its authorised signatory.
…Opposite party
For the complainant : Shri S.P.Sharma, Adv.
For OP : Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Yash Arora, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a second hand mobile phone make Samsung Galaxy from one Mr. Rajinder Kumar Wasist who was the owner of the above said mobile vide bill number 1409 dated 8.10.2013. The mobile set in question developed some fault and as such, the complainant approached the opposite party on 4.1.2017 for repairs and the OP told that an amount of Rs.800/- would be chargeable and as such the OP issued acknowledgement of service request. It is further averred that after a few days on 20.2.2017, the complainant visited the OP to collect the phone set, but to the utter surprise of the complainant, the OP told that there is a problem in the motherboard of the mobile set. When the complainant asked the OP that earlier the OP had mentioned that there is charging problem in the said mobile then how the mother board can be defective, then the OP did not hear the complainant. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to remove all defects in the mobile set in question and hand over the same without any fault and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply of the complaint, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has filed the present complaint with mischievous intentions thereby enabling him to enrich at the cost of OP by filing frivolous claim, the complainant has not intentionally mentioned the date of purchase of the phone set from Shri Rajinder Washisht, who was the original owner being purchaser of the mobile set on 8.10.2013 and that the mobile set is out of warranty period and not covered under the warranty condition, that the complainant is not entitled for any relief and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant intentionally did not approve the estimate of repair given by the OP. It is stated further that the cost of the mother board is Rs.4951/-. On merits, it is averred that the complainant handed over the mobile set on 4.1.2017 for repairs to the OP and it has been denied that the OP asked that its repair charges would be Rs.800/-. It is stated further that since the complainant did not approve the estimate, the repairs of the mobile in question were not conducted. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Op has been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 affidavit and documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP-5 affidavits and documents and closed evidence.
4. 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 dismissal, for these reasons.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has alleged that the complainant submitted an old mobile phone on 4.1.2017 to the OP for its repairs and the OP agreed to charge an amount of Rs.800/- for its repairs and later on demanded the excess amount i.e. Rs.4951/- on the ground that the mother board of the mobile set is defective one and as such has prayed that the Op be directed to repair the mobile set to its satisfaction. On the other hand, the stand of the Op is that the complainant was apprised about the problem in the mobile set and gave an estimate to the tune of Rs.4951/-, which was not approved by the complainant, as such, the mobile set in question was not repaired. We have very carefully perused the whole file and failed to find any documentary evidence on record to show that the Op ever asked the complainant that an amount of Rs.800/- is required to be spent on the repairs of the mobile phone in question. We have also perused the copy of job order sheet dated 4.1.2017 issued by OP, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3, but it no where depicts that the Op ever offered the complainant that an amount of Rs.800/- would be charged for the repairs of the mobile set in question. On the other hand, the stand of the Op is that the mobile set is out of warranty and the Op apprised the complainant that the motherboard of the mobile set is defective one and the same needs replacement and the cost of which is Rs.4951/-, but the complainant did not approve the estimate for the same, as such, the mobile set was not repaired. To support this contention, the OP has also produced affidavits Ex.OP-1 of Gaurav Kumar, Ex.OP-2 of Jaswinder Kumar and Ex.OP-3 of Kulwant Singh and further Ex.OP-4 is the expert report of Shri Kulwant Singh, Service Engineer. After bare perusal of the whole case record, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record nor has filed any rejoinder nor has denied this fact.
6. In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in complaint or any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as such, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
June 21, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
