DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 76
Instituted on: 22.02.2017
Decided on: 20.06.2017
Rakesh Ahuja son of Shri Krishan Chand R/O # 87, Noorpura Mohalla, Outside Sunami Gate, Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Hasija Enterprises, Phirni Road, Near Jindal Book Depot, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.
2. Gaurav Communications, Gaushalla Road, Near Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its Prop/partner.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 7th & 8th Floor, IFC-1, Tower, 61, Nehru Palace, New Delhi through its MD/CEO.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.
For OP No.3 : Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.
For OPs No.1&2 : Exparte.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Rakesh Ahuja, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Samsung Galaxy A5 Gold mobile set having IMEI number 359932/06/387828/5 for Rs.18,500/- vide invoice number 1908 dated 23.02.2016 from OP number 1, which was having one year warranty/guarantee. It is further averred that from the very beginning the mobile set is not working properly and the battery back up of the mobile set is very poor. Further case of the complainant is that in the month of February, 2017 the mobile set started to give other problems of display dot and mobile set not charging, which disturbed the complainant too much and as such the complainant visited OP number 2 on 7.2.2017, who issued job sheet number 4230407489 and thereafter he returned the mobile set to the complainant after rectification, but the problem of display dot and mobile set remained same and the same were not removed despite visiting the Ops. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund to the complainant the purchase price of the mobile set and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Record shows that OP number 1 and 2 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 and 2 were proceeded exparte.
3. In the reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has filed the present complaint with mischievous intentions as the complainant has submitted his hand set for the first time with the OP number 2 on 7.2.2017 after about 11 months of its purchase and use of hand set and the report problem of ‘Hang, Charging, display lining’ has been rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant and without any charges, that the complainant has no legitimate ground entitling him for replacement of the mobile set, that the present complaint is gross misuse of process of law and no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied. On merits, the purchase of the mobile set vide bill number 1908 dated 23.2.2016 for Rs.18,500/- is admitted from OP number 1. It has been denied that the mobile set in question was suffering from any problem and battery backup of the mobile is very poor is also denied. It is stated further that after rectification of the problem in the mobile set on 7.2.2017, the complainant never approached the Op for the same. As such, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 affidavit of Nirbhai Singh, Ex.C-4 expert report dated 16.2.2017 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit along with Annexure R-1, Ex.OP3/2 affidavit of Kulwant Singh, Ex.OP3/3 expert report and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.
6. Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice dated 23.02.2016 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the Samsung Galaxy mobile set in question for Rs.18,500/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 3 and availed its services for the same.
7. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question on 23.2.2016, but the complainant has averred in the complaint that the mobile set in question was suffering from the problems from the very beginning and it was not working properly, but a bare perusal of the file clearly shows that the complainant approached OP number 2 i.e. Service Centre of OP number 3 only on 7.2.2017 with the problem of display dot and mobile set not charging, which problem was immediately rectified by OP number 2 and thereafter the complainant never visited OP number 2 nor lodged any problem in the mobile set with the OP number 2. The complainant has alleged that the mobile set in question is having the problem of display dot and mobile set not charging, but a bare perusal of the report of Nirbhai Singh shows that the mobile set has other problems like battery back up and net work and stated that there is manufacturing defect therein. But, the fact remains that the complainant got checked the mobile set on 13.2.2017 and got prepared the report on 16.2.2017 and filed the present complaint at the fag end on 22.2.2017 when its warranty/guarantee was going to expire. But, it is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not produced any evidence on record to show that he ever approached OP number 2 after 7.2.2017 after getting the mobile set repaired to his entire satisfaction. The OP number 2 has also produced the expert report, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the complainant submitted his hand set on 7.2.2017 to the service centre after about 11 months of the purchase with the problem of hanging, charging, display lining in the hand set and the same were duly rectified and thereafter the complainant never approached the service centre for any kind of defect in the mobile set and has further stated that there is no manufacturing defect therein in the mobile set. As such, after perusal of the whole file and record, we feel that the complainant has filed the present complaint with ulterior motive only to get replaced the mobile set in question, which has no defect much less manufacturing defect. It is worth mentioning here that the mobile set in question worked properly from the very date of its purchase i.e. 23.2.2016 till 7.2.2017, whereas its warranty was going to expire on 22.2.2017 and the complainant filed the present complaint on 22.2.2017 to get undue benefit from the OPs. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish on record any manufacturing defect in the mobile set as he never lodged any complaint with the OP number 2 after 7.2.2017.
8. In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in complaint or any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as such, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
June 20,2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
