Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/4/2019

Sandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Goyal International - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. M.K. Gupta

12 Nov 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATHGARH  SAHIB.

                                                                 Complaint Case No: 04 of 2019

        Date of Institution: 04.02.2019

        Date of Decision: 12.11.2021

Sandeep Singh aged about 29 years son of Sh. Bahadur Singh, resident of House No.160, Sector 1A, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh Distt. Fathegarh Sahib

                                                                                           ...........Complainant

Vs.

1. Goyal International , Main Bazar, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil  Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib, through is proprietor..
2. Techno Solution, i.e Samsung Service Centre, Ward No.17, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib through its authorized signatory.
3.  Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi 110044, through its authorized signatory.

..........Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019

Quorum

Sh.Pushvinder  Singh, President

Ms.Shivani Bhargava, Member

         Sh.Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

   

Present: Sh. Manoj Kumar Garg Advocate, counsel for the         complainant.

None for OP no.1

         Opposite Party no. 2 Ex-parte.

          Sh.G.S.Nagra, Counsel for the Opposite party no.3.

                      

ORDER

By Pushvinder  Singh, President

                      The present complaint was filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as “OPs” for short) Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

2.                In this complaint, Sandeep Singh, CC stated that he  purchased a mobile Hand  Set Marka Samsung Model J-7 MAX, IMEI No.358344-08-721913/5 from the OP No.1 on 08.08.2017 for the total price of Rs.17,900/- through invoice No.5032 through installment with Home Credit and all the installments were duly paid by him in time. The OP no.1 took the signature of the complainant on some documents after collection of amount of Rs.17,900/- from the  CC. The OP no.1 has given warranty/guarantee of one year for any defect in said mobile Hand  Set and also assured that incase of any defect in the said Mobile Hand Set, the OP will return the same amount or  replace the same with new one of same price range. After few days from purchase the said Mobile Hand Set started having  the problem of heating and hanging. Then the  CC approached the OP no.1 for solving the problem in the above said hand set and the OP no.1 advised CC to approach  the nearest service centre i.e OP no.2. On 24.3.2018, the said Mobile Hand Set became totally dead . Thereafter the CC personally visited the office of the OP no.2 for removing the defect from the defective Mobile Hand Set and the concerned dealing hand checked the mobile  Hand set and issued the Job Sheet no.4257220943 dated 24.03.2018 to the CC and the OP no.2 delivered the said mobile Hand Set to the CC on the same day with assurance that the defect has been removed and that , now it will not create any problem in  future.  On 14.04.2018,the said Mobile  Hand Set again started creating the same problem of heating and hanging and  became dead. The CC again  visited the OP no.2 and told about the said defect and  the OP no.2 issued the Job Sheet no.4257220943 on 14.04.2018 and after doing needful, the Op no.2 handed over the same to the CC with assurance that,  that now Mobile Set will not create any problem in future. On  19.05.2018, the said Mobile  Hand Set  again started creating the same problem of heating and hanging and then became dead.  The  CC again visited the OP no.2 and told about the said defect. The Op no.2 issued the Job Sheet no.4257220943 on 19.05.2018 and after needful, the OP no.2 handed over the same to the CC. On 19.09.2018, the said Mobile  Hand Set again started creating the same problem  of heating and hanging and the CC again visited the OP no.2 i.e  service centre and told about  the said defect. Then the OP no.2 suggested the CC that he may  use the said mobile hand set for 2/3 months and that  they had sent the e-mail to the company  i.e OP. NO.3 to return the amount and that it will take 2/3 months time and asked the CC to visit the service  centre on the last week of December  2018 for receiving the cheque of amount of mobile hand set. Then the  CC visited  office of OP no.2 on 20.12.2018 and then OP no.2 told the CC that the OP no.3 had totally refused to refund the like amount or to replace the said defective mobile hand set with new one.  After that  the CC approached  OP no.1  to replace the defective Mobile Hand Set with new one or  to refund the like amount but the OP no.1 also  refused to do so.    Hence , this complaint is for  giving  directions to the OPs to  replace the said defective Mobile Hand Set with new one of same price range or to return the amount of Rs.17,900/- along with interest including Rs.25,000/- the amount of compensation of harassment and mental agony and Rs.22,000/- the fee of the litigation  due to the deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as enumerated above.

3.                The complaint is contested by OPs no.3, who filed his written reply, Raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties,  filing frivolous claim, the CC concealed the material and true facts, devoid of any merits, the CC has not approached this Commission with clean hands as he has got no cause of action etc. On merit OP No.3 stated that the CC has submitted his handset with OP. no.2 only once on 24.03.2018 with problem of 'Handset Dead' and OP No.2 duly rectified the problem under warranty free of costs by updating the software of the handset and handset was delivered back to the CC in OK condition to the satisfaction of the CC .  Thereafter, the CC never reported any problem in his mobile hand set to OP No.2.  The CC alleged that job sheets having same serial number have been issued on 24.03.2018, 14.04.2018 & 19.05.2018, which is not possible because job sheet is computer generated and for different dates there will be different job sheet having different serial number. It is further stated that the performance of the mobile hand set depends upon the physical handling of the product apart from compatibility of downloaded mobile application and games. The CC has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence. In the absence of any independent expert evidence, the claim of the CC cannot be allowed. There is no deficiency in service or breach of contract on the part of OP No.3. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.3 prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

4.                The   Notice of this complaint was given to OP. no.2 but in spite of proper service OP no.2 did not come present to contest this complaint and  was proceeded against Ex-Parte.  OP no.1 appeared on 28.3.2019 but after that he did not file his reply and on  dated 6.5.2019 right to file the  written reply was struck off.

5.                The CC in support of his complaint tendered in his evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OP. no.1 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP no.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Anup Kumar Mathur Ex.OP3/1 and closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record.

7.                The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued on the lines of pleadings of complaint and requested to allow the complaint in favour of complainant, whereas Ld. counsel for Opposite Party No.3 denied any kind of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and requested to dismiss the complaint with.

8.               The complainant has filed his complaint that he purchased a Mobile Hand Set  Marka Samsung Model  J-7 MAX from OP no.1 on  8.8.2017  for the total  price of  Rs.17,900/-  in this regard he proved  invoice/bill  as Ex.C1. At the time of  purchase the said Mobile Hand set , the OP given the warranty/guarantee of one year for any defect  in the above said mobile hand set and it was  assured by him  that on any  defect in the said Mobile Hand Set,  the OP will return the amount of the same or will replace the same with new one  of same price range and  after some  days  of purchase the said Mobile Hand Set  started creating  problems of heating  and hanging. On complaint to OP  no.1, complainant was  advised  to approach the OP no.2 i.e  nearest service centre. On 24.3.2018 , the said Mobile hand  Set became  dead totally.  Thereafter  the complainant  approached the OP no.2  to remove the defect and the OP  NO.2  delivered the said mobile hand set to the complainant on  same day with  assurance that the defect has been removed .  It has been proved by furnishing  Job sheet as  Ex.C2 .  On 14.4.2018, the mobile hand set again started  creating  same problem of heating  and hanging and  then became dead.  The complainant  again visited the OP no.2, who issued  the Job Sheet, which is Ex.C3 on file and as stated by OP no.2 that defect was again removed. On 19.5.2018, the above said mobile hand set again  started/ creating same problem of heating and hanging and then became dead.  The complainant  again visited the OP no.2  and OP no.2 issued Job Sheet dated 19.5.2018 , which is Ex.C4. The OP no.2  handed over the same with assurance that the defect was again removed. Thereafter 19.9.2018,  the said mobile hand set again starting/creating  the same problem of heating and hanging and the complainant visited  the OP no.2 and then OP no.2 sent E-mail  to the company i.e OP no.3  to return the price  of mobile hand sent  and it was stated by the OP no.2  that it will take 2/3 months .  Thereafter , no amount was returned  nor  said mobile hand set was replaced with new one. Only OP no.3 came forward  to contest the complaint  and OP no. 2 preferred to remain Ex-Parte. The OP no.3 contested this complaint  and stated that there were no manufacturing defect in the said mobile hand set, so OP no. 3 is not liable . OP no.1 did not  file any reply  and his defence was struck off  and from  evidence produced by the complainant, it has been established  that  said  Mobile hand set Marka Samsung model J-7MAX was purchased by the complainant from OP no.1 for total price of Rs.17,900/- cash  bill of same is Ex.C1 on file . Thereafter the complainant took the hand set  to the service centre  i.e OP no.2  on  24.3.2018 and second time  14.4.2018 and third time  19.5.2018. The acknowledgement of service request  issued by OPs are as Ex.C2,Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 on the file, which is clearly  shows that  there was defect in  the said mobile hand set and the same was produced by the complainant before the service centre for its repair. OP no.3 authorized Anup Kumar Mathur to appear in this complaint before this Commission to depose and Anup Kumar Mathur furnished affidavit Ex.OP3/1 and he has  deposed that on 24.3.2018 said Mobile hand set  was brought to authorized service centre and defect was rectified and it was delivered back to the complainant in working condition and thereafter  complainant had never reported any defect in said Mobile Hand set to OP no.2.  Deposition of Anup Kumar Mathur  did not admit , the acknowledgement  of service  requests dated 14.4.2018 and 19.5.2018 proved as Ex.C3 and Ex.C4. The version of OP no.3 can not be accepted that after  24.3.2018 the said mobile hand set  remained in working condition  perfectly and no complaint was made  by the complainant. The acknowledgement  Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 show that  defect was reported on 14.4.2018  and 19.5.2018  also .  The bill and Job sheets shows that  mobile hand set  became defective within period of one year.  In such  circumstances OPs should have removed the defect in the mobile hand set or  they should  replace the said mobile set with new one or should return the price of mobile hand sent.

9.         In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to replace the said mobile hand set  Marka Samsung Model J-7 MAX  having same price or they should  refund the price of said mobile hand set  i.e Rs.17,900/- to the complainant on return the old defected hand set. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.10,000/- as compensation  and the litigation expenses. The liability of OPs shall be joint and several. Compliance of this order be made by OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.   Free certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant and copy be sent to the OPs through registered post as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

November  12, 2021

                                                             (Pushvinder Singh)

                                                                        President

 

                                                       

                                                            (Shivani Bhargava)

                                                                                                  Member

 

 

                                                                 (Manjit Singh Bhinder)

                                                                         Member