DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Rajesh Kumar s/o Nanak Chand resident of House No.711/30, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Harish Communication through its Proprietor, SCO No.62-63, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh

2.                 Durga Communication (Service Centre of Samsung) SCO No.23, 1^st Floor, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh

3.                 Samsung through its Manager, Customer Service at Suites, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative, Industrial Estate, New Delhi 110044.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Complainant in person

                        OPs exparte

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Rajesh Kumar has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :

            “It is, therefore, requested that defective handset may kindly be got replaced in the interest of justice and to save me from the harassment and inconvenience being faced by me.”

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung Champ Deluxe C 3312 mobile handset from opposite party No.1 vide invoice (C-I) dated 22.2.2012 for Rs.3,800/-. 

According to the complainant, on the very next day, it suffered from the problem of ‘time staying’ which meant that time was not updated.  He contacted the dealer and the set was rectified.  The handset ran smoothly for two days only.  Thereafter, it started giving the same problem.  He contacted the dealer again who advised him to approach the Service Centre i.e. opposite party No.2.

It has been pleaded by the complainant that on 28.2.2012 he went to opposite party No.2 where the engineer told him that it was a software problem.  Job sheet was prepared and the complainant was asked to visit the service centre on the next day.  The complainant collected the handset on the next day but the problem of ‘time staying’ again occurred after two days. 

According to the complainant, he went to the service centre many times i.e. on 28.2.2012, 3.3.2012, 9-10.3.2012, 14-15.4.2012, 18.4.2012 and 28.4.2012 for the removal of the said defect.  Thereafter he contacted the Customer Care Executive on 1.5.2012 and 2.5.2012 but no satisfactory reply was received.  He also complained to the head office vide emails at   In reply the complainant was told that the handset has been repaired and to collect the same from the service centre.

It has been pleaded that the handset in question is defective because within a short period of its purchase it had to be taken to the service centre for removal of defect many times.  Despite it, the defect could not be rectified.  So the handset is beyond repairs. According to the complainant, failure on the part of the opposite parties to replace the defective handset amounts to deficiency in service.

In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           None appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2 despite due service, hence they were proceeded against exparte.

4.                           Similarly, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3, hence it was also proceeded against exparte.

5.                           We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           Annexure A-I is the invoice dated 22.2.2012 vide which the complainant purchased the handset in question for Rs.3,800/-. Annexure A-II to A-IV are the job sheets showing that the handset had to be taken to the service centre for repairs on different dates.  Annexure A-V to A-VIII are the copies of email correspondence exchanged between the parties. 

7.                           According to the complainant right from day one of purchase, the handset in question is not functioning properly. In a short span of around two months, it had to be taken to the service centre many times for removal of defects, but still the same could not be set right.  Hence, according to the complainant, the handset in question is beyond repairs and needs to be replaced.  In support of his contentions, the complainant has filed his duly sworn affidavit.

8.                           The opposite parties did not appear to controvert the averments of the complainant.  Hence the stand of the complainant goes unrebutted.

9.                           So from the affidavit submitted by the complainant read with Annexure A-II to A-VIII it is apparent that the handset in question is defective and could not be repaired.  The handset is beyond repairs and appears to have some manufacturing defect.  So, failure to replace the same with a new one amounts to deficiency in service.

10.                       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to replace the handset in question with a new one of the same make and model.

11.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall return the price of the handset i.e. Rs.3,800/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of its purchase i.e. 22.2.2012 till actual payment.

12.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

27.09.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg