Haryana

Panchkula

CC/267/2014

MOHAMMAD RAFFI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GUPTA COMMUNICATION. - Opp.Party(s)

SURAJ PARKASH.

22 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	267 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	23.12.2014
Date of Decision	:	22.05.2015

                                                                                            

Mohammed Raffi, aged 25 years, R/o Vilage Dabkori, Tehsil and Distt. Panchkula.

                                                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Gupta Communication, Booth No.16, Sector-11, Panchkula through its authorized signatory.
2. Samsung Service Centre, SCO No.203, Sector-14, Panchkula through its Manager.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. B-1, Sector-81, Phase II, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, (UP) through its Care Manager.
4. Samsung Customer Satisfaction, 2^nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Gold Course Road, Gurgaon, (HRY) through its Manager.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Coram:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

Mr.Vikram Singh, Adv., for Op no.1

              Mr.Puneet Tuli, Adv., for the OPs No.2, 3 and 4.        

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. Mohammed Raffi-complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a Samsung Mobile Handset Model Galaxy S-duos-2, IMEI No.352996/06/237928/7 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.8000/- vide bill No.5408 (Annexure C-1) dated 17.07.2014 with a warranty of one year. At the time of purchase, the Op No.1 assured that the set was all right and it would work effectively. But the mobile phone started giving problem in network, signal problem within a week and it would automatically remained in Emergency Service. The complainant brought the defect to the notice of Op No.1 but Op No.1 did not take any interest on the request of the complainant. The complainant visited many times but he refused to entertain his request. After repeating requests by the complainant, the OP No.1 directed the complainant to approach the OP No.2 for rectifying the defect. The complainant approached Op No.2 and Op No.2 after updating the software handed over the mobile phone to the complainant. Op No.2 told the complainant that he has not faced the problem again and on believing the version of OP No.2, the complainant took the delivery of the mobile phone. But after using of two days, the mobile phone started giving problem and the complainant approached OP No.2 who again updated the software and handed over the mobile phone to the complainant with the assurance that the mobile phone was defect free. But the problem in the mobile phone still existed. The complainant again approached the Op No.2 and requested to rectify the defect permanently but the Op No.2 failed to give any assurance of permanent rectification as the mobile phone had manufacturing defect. The complainant requested the Op No.2 to replace the mobile phone with new one but the Op No.2 refused to replace the same. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 26.08.2014 to the Ops with a request to replace the mobile phone with new one and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation but the Ops failed to comply with the legal notice which act and conduct of the Ops amount to deficiency in service.
2. In reply, the Op No.1 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.1 is a retailer of different mobile sets. It is submitted that the Op No.1 is neither the supplier nor the distributor of any mobile hand set company and the Op No.1 has no role in manufacturing or in after sale service of the mobile set. It is submitted that the Op No.1 has sold a sealed hand set of Samsung Company to the complainant in a proper working condition up to the full satisfaction of the complainant. It is denied that the Op No.1 gave any assurance to the complainant, he showed him different mobile phones of the different companies and the complainant himself chose what he liked to purchase at that time. It is submitted that the OP No.1 is not agent of Op No.3 and the Op No.1 is the retail seller of different mobile companies. It is submitted that the complainant visited the shop of Op No.1 but the Op No.1 politely told him that if there was any defect in the mobile phone that can be repaired only by Ops No.2 and 3 as the Op No.1 has no role or facility for the repair & exchange of mobile set and the mobile phone of the complainant was under warranty. It is submitted that the OP No.1 has never received any legal notice. Thus, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In reply, the Ops No.2 to 4 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the mobile phone carried one year warranty and the same was checked and no defect was found in the same. It is submitted that the Ops No.2 to 4 were also ready to check and inspect the mobile phone, if there was any defect in the mobile phone, the same should be repaired within the warranty. It is submitted that the complainant has not place on record any expert evidence that there was defect in the mobile set and the defect was of a manner that the same was not capable of being repaired. It is submitted that the Ops No.2 to 4 were ready to carry out the necessary repair, if any, as might be required subject to the warranty condition. It is submitted that the complainant pointed out the problem of network & signal and the complainant has availed the services of Op No.2. It is submitted that first time, the mobile phone was brought to Op No.2 on 30.09.2014 and after updating the software, the mobile phone was handed over to the complainant and thereafter, no complaint has been lodged with the Ops. It is submitted that there was no defect in the mobile phone so there was no question of there being any manufacturing defect and replacement of the same. Thus, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops No.2 to 4 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.1 has made a separate statement that his written statement may be read as his evidence. He does not want to file any more evidence and closed the evidence. Counsel for the Ops No.2 to 4 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R2/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully & minutely.
6. It is evident from the retail invoice (Annexure C-1) dated 17.07.2014, the complainant purchased a Samsung mobile hand set model Galaxy S-duos-2, IMEI No.352996/06/237928/7 for a sum of Rs.8,000/- from the OP No.1. But the mobile phone started giving problem within a week of its purchase and was taken to the service center i.e Op No.2 on 30.09.2014 alleging a problem with network, signal and automatically remained in emergency service. The OP No.2 has admitted in job sheet (Annexure C-2) that the 1^st sim network auto not select. The complainant claimed that the Ops failed to rectify the defects in the mobile phone as against it, the Op No.2 submitted that the mobile was inspected and software was upgraded in latest version. However, the Op No.1 has not produced any cogent, convincing and reliable evidence in support of this contention. In the absence of any documentary proof that facts, pleading of the Ops are hollow and devoid of any merit. Moreover, the Ops in their written statement have also admitted that they were ready to carry out the necessary repair in the mobile phone. The Ops failed to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant despite the fact that the mobile handset was under warranty. Non-repairing of mobile in question despite repeated requests proves deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
7. Evidently the complainant had spent the money for the purchase of brand new mobile handset to facilitate himself but not for moving the service center and then this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Ops. Even the defects in the mobile phone within a week of its purchase, makes pointer towards the poor quality of the product. The complainant has been deprived of possession of the mobile handset. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
8. In the light of above observations, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops are found deficient in not giving proper services to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the Ops and the same is allowed. The Ops jointly and severely directed as under:-
   1. To repair the mobile handset to the satisfaction of the complainant, free of costs.
   2. To pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and cost of litigation.

 

9. This order shall be complied with by the Ops within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

22.05.2015    ANIL SHARMA     ANITA KAPOOR               DHARAM PAL

                      MEMBER                       MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                                     DHARAM PAL 

                                                     PRESIDENT