Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/318

Mr Rajinder pal Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

Goyal Service Center - Opp.Party(s)

Smt Kusam Sood

06 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No.CC/14/318 of 14.11.2014

                                      Decided on: 6.5.2015

 

Mr.Rajinder Pal Sood S/o Late Sh. Om Parkash Sood, Resident of 5,Friends Colony, Patiala, Punjab.      

 

                                                                   ….Complainant

                                       Versus

1.       Goyal Electro World, Opposite SST Nagar, Rajpura Road, Patiala-147001, through its Proprietor.

2.       Samsung Service Center, SCO-33, First Floor, City Center, Bhupindra Road, Patiala, Punjab-147001, through its Proprietor

 

                                                                   ….Ops

 

                                       Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

                                     

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Abhivadya Sood  , Advocate

For Op no.1:                           Sh.S.R.Bansal,Advocate

For Op no.2:                           Ex-parte.             

                                     

                                         ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone Samsung Galaxy Star Pro Model No.7262, having EMIE No.352157/06/357772/2/ from Op no.1 vide invoice No.047, dated 11.4.2014 for an amount of Rs.5850/-.It is averred that at the time of purchasing the said mobile phone, the complainant also got the mobile phone insured from Op no.1 for Rs.500/- which included after sales service for the mobile. It is further averred that in the month of August, the said mobile phone started creating problem and the complainant approached Op no.1 on 6.8.2014 and the  official of Op no.1 deleted certain items from  the phone so as to make the memory of the phone ligher and told the complainant that after the deletion of certain items from the phone, it would work properly. But even after deleting certain items the mobile phone did not function properly. Again on 12.8.2014, the complainant approached Op no.1, who told the complainant to buy a memory card worth Rs.500/- , which was supposed to be an antidote for all the issues cropping up in the mobile phone. Accordingly, the complainant purchased the memory card  for Rs.500/- but that also did not solve the problem and on contacting Op no.1, it directed him to approach the service centre of the company.
2.           On 28.8.2014, the complainant approached service centre who after replacing the software of the mobile phone returned the same to the complainant on the next day.
3.           It is further averred that after one week, the complainant again approached Op no.2 who after doing minor checking, returned the mobile phone to the complainant but the defect in the mobile phone could not be rectified. On 7.10.2014, the complainant served a legal notice upon Ops but to no use. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment due to non-rectification of the defect in the mobile phone. As the defect occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period, Ops were bound to rectify the same which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency of service on their part. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act).
4.           On notice, Op no.1 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint, whereas Op no.2 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against exparte. In its written statement. Op no.1, after admitting that the mobile phone was purchased by the complainant from it, has denied all the facts mentioned in the complaint. After denying  all other allegations going against it, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5.           In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and his counsel closed the evidence.
6.           Whereas the counsel for Op no.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Gulshan Kumar, H.R.Manager, authorized representative of Op no.1 and closed the evidence.
7.           Op no.1 submitted written arguments. We have gone through the same,  heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence placed on record.
8.           Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from Op no.1 for an amount of Rs.5850/- on 11.4.2014.Ex.C2 is the copy of the insurance whereby he got the mobile  phone insured which included after sales service for the mobile phone. In the month of August 2014, some  problem cropped up in the said mobile phone and the complainant approached Op no.1, who after deleting certain items from the mobile phone, returned the same to the complainant but the problem could not be solved.        Again on 12.8.2014, the complainant approached Op no.1 but the defect could not be rectified. During the course of arguments, Mr.Gulshan Kumar, authorized representative of Op no.1 stated that as and when the complainant approached Op no.1, it tried its best to rectify the defect and when it could not be rectified its employees told the complainant to approach Op no.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company. Accordingly the complainant approached Op no.2 twice but the problem in the mobile phone could not be rectified which shows that the defect in the mobile phone is irreparable as it could not be removed inspite of rectifying it time and again. The complainant also served a registered AD legal notice to Op no.2, which Op no.2 failed to reply. Moreover, failure on the part of Op no.2 to contest the claim of the complainant also shows its indifferent attitude to solve the complaint of the complainant.
9.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to Op no.2 to replace the mobile hand set with a new one of the same make and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.5850/-, the price of the mobile phone. Op is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant which is  inclusive of the cost of litigation. Order be complied by Op no.2 within one month of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated:6.5.2015

 

                                       Sonia Bansal               Neelam Gupta

                                         Member                          Member