Punjab

Sangrur

CC/46/2015

Raj kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Guru Kirpa Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ashish Kumar Grover

19 May 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                      

                                                          Complaint no. 46

Instituted On 22.01.2015

Decided On 19.05.2015                                                                               

Raj Kumar son of Shri Pritam Lal resident of # 159, Partap Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Sangrur.       

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     Guru Kirpa Enterprises, Near Bus Stand, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Partner.

2.     Gaurav Communication, Opp. PWD Rest House, Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its  Proprietor/ Partner.

3.     Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFC-1 Tower, 61 Nehru Palace, New Delhi through its M.D./ CEO.   

      ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT     Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.1&2  Exparte                     

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3         Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate                    

   

Quorum

                   

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                    K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

ORDER    

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Raj Kumar, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased one Samsung Galaxy Grand 2 set from the OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.22500/- vide invoice number 17699 dated 28.01.2014.  At the time of purchase of said mobile set, one year warranty was given by OPs. On 5.11.2014, the said mobile set started giving problems of touch and display as the touch did not response properly and the display of the said mobile phone started blinking. The complainant approached the OP No.2 to rectify the problems who issued job sheet on the same day.  The OP No.2 repaired the phone by changing the touch and LCD  of the mobile phone on the same date. Again on 05.01.2015 the said mobile phone started giving  problems of touch and display.  The OP No.2 again issued job sheet dated 05.01.2015. When the  complainant received his mobile  phone back then he noticed that  the defects were not rectified.  On 12.01.2015 the mobile set in dispute stopped working completely by auto switched off. This time the OP No.2 refused to issue the job sheet and told that same has manufacturing defect. The complainant requested the OPs to replace the  defective mobile set with new one as it is within guarantee period but they refused to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs - 

i)      OPs be directed to refund Rs.22500/ - as cost of the mobile set in question along with interest  @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii )    OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment and to pay Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             After receipt of present complaint, notices were sent to the OPs. The OPs No.1 and 2 did not appear and they were proceeded exparte on 03.03.2015 whereas OP no.3 appeared through counsel.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.3, preliminary objections on the grounds of cause of action, territorial jurisdiction, maintainability and misuse of process of law have been taken up.  It is submitted that the complainant submitted his handset with OP No.2 for the first time on 05.11.2014 after 9 months of  its purchase and then on 05.01.2015  and 13.01.2015 on every visit his  problems very duly rectified and handset was delivered back in OK condition to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The performance of the mobile  phone depends upon the physical  handling of the product apart from installation and downloading of various mobile applications, games and other software. The problem charging alleged by the complainant have arisen due to physical mishandling of the handset. On 05.01.2015 the complainant visited  the OP No.2 but on inspection of handset by the service engineer  no problem was found.  The complainant has neither  alleged any specific irrepairable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence. It is submitted that under the warranty OP is  only liable to repair the defective parts of the product in question. The complainant has failed to prove on record that hand set in question cannot be repaired, thus he is not entitled for replacement or refund of price. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3

4.             In support of his case the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence.  On the other hand OP No.3 has tendered document an affidavit Ex.OP3/1 and closed evidence.

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file, we find that the complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy Grand 2 mobile set  manufactured by OP No.3 from  the OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.22500/- with a warranty of one year vide  invoice  number 17699 dated 28.01.2014 which is Ex.C-1 on record.  

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and thoroughly perusing the entire documents produced on record by the parties, we find that it is admitted by the OP No.3 that the mobile set in question was brought to the  service centre i.e. OP No.2  on 5.11.2014  with the problem of display and the  handset was checked. The LCD of the same  was replaced with new one  and the handset was returned to the complainant  to his satisfaction.  It is also admitted by OP No.3 that  the complainant  visited the  OP No.2 again on 5.1.2015  but on inspection  of handset  no defect was found.  Further, it is also admitted by the OP No.3 that  on 13.1.2015  the LCD and touch  were replaced  and handset was made OK to the satisfaction of the complainant.  But, the  complainant’s specific case is that defects in the mobile set  in question could not be rectified though it was within the warranty period.

7.             To substantiate his version, the complainant has also produced report of an expert namely Mr. Damanjit Singh, Proprietor Singh Connectivity, Phirni Road,  Sunami Gate, Sangrur who opined that  after thorough checking he found that mobile set is giving the  said problem  due to manufacturing defect  and the problem   is not curable one whereas the OP has  not produced the report of an expert which shows that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set. Moreover the OP has not produced any cogent evidence which could show that the mobile set in question   was delivered back  in OK condition to the satisfaction of the complainant. The OP No. 3 has only produced an affidavit of Shri Shriniwas  Joshi, Senior Manager, Samsung India Electronics Private Limited which is Ex.OP3/1 on record  which we feel is not sufficient to hold that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set question.

8.             Another aspect of the case is that the OPs No.1 and 2 have not come present despite service to contest the case but they chosen to remain exparte. In our opinion, the OP No. 2 was the best party, if appeared in the present case, who fully proved the case of OPs that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question  after producing his record. As such the evidence produced by the complainant has  gone unrebutted.   

9.             In view of the above discussion, we feel that the complainant has successfully proved his case. Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same model or in the alternative refund the price amount of  the same i.e. Rs.22500/-. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as consolidated amount of compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. 

10.           This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

                Announced.

May 19, 2015.

 

 

( Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)       ( Sukhpal Singh Gill)            Member                Member                    President

 

BBS/-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ass=MsoNormal>