Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/78/2015

Dinesh Kumar Raheja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Himalya Photo Store - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. M.K.Garg

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.78 of 2015

                                           Date of institution :01.09.2015                                                   Date of decision    :14.03.2016

Dinesh Kumar Raheja aged about 40 years son of Ram Lal r/o Ward No.13, Mohalla Dhobian, Bassi Pathana, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Himaliya Photo Store, SCO No.1032-1033, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its proprietor/partner.
2. Samsung Care Centre, C/o Techno Solutions, Ward No.17, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its authorized signatory.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A 25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative, Industrial Estate,  New Delhi 110044, through its authorized signatory.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                              

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                    Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member                                                  

Present :  Sh.M.K. Garg, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                                   Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 exparte                                                        Sh. G.S.Nagra, Adv.Cl. for OP No.3.       

ORDER

 

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                      Complainant, Dinesh Kumar Raheja aged about 40 years son of Ram Lal r/o Ward No.13, Mohalla Dhobian, Bassi Pathana, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant purchased a mobile hand set Samsung G-355, IMEI No.354799064592594 from OP No.1 on 11.06.2014, vide bill No.8945 for the sum of Rs. 11,500/-. At the time of purchase of the said mobile hand set, OP No.1 gave one year warrantee/guarantee for any defect and also assured that in case there is any defect in the mobile hand set, OP No.1 will return the amount of mobile hand set along with interest or to replace the same with new one of the same price range. After using the mobile hand set for some time, a fault occurred in the mobile hand set as the same started the problem of hanging so many times in a day and also automatically switched off. The complainant visited OP No.2 i.e. authorized service centre of the company and told about the problem, who issued job sheet No.4194599249 dated 20.05.2015 and assured the complaint to get the mobile hand set on 25.05.2015 after removal of the defect. Thereafter on 25.05.2015 the complainant approached OP No.2 to get the mobile hand set, who delivered the same with assurance that the defect has been removed and the same will not create any problem in future.  But on using the same, it has been found that the problem still exists in the mobile hand set and the same has not been removed. Thereafter on 05.08.2015, the complainant visited the shop of OP No.1 and requested to replace the defective mobile set with new one of the same price range or to refund the like amount but he totally refused to return the amount or to replace the mobile with new one, rather he misbehaved with the complainant,  which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint for directing the OPs to refund Rs.11,500/- i.e. price of mobile hand set and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony  suffered by the complainant and  Rs.5500/- as litigation charges.  
3.           Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but OPs No. 1 and 2 choose not to appear to contest this complaint, hence they were proceeded against exparte.
4.           The complaint is contested by OP No.3. In reply to the complaint OP No.3 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as he has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; the present complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Consumer protection Act and the present complaint is gross misuse of the process of law. As regards the facts of the complaint, it stated that complainant approached OP No.2 on 20.05.2015 with the problem of hanging and on inspection it was found that the problem was due to loading of non-compatible mobile applications and games, which corrupted the software due to which the said mobile hand set started problem of hanging and auto switched off. The problem was duly rectified by updating the software. The mobile hand set was delivered to the complainant in OK condition and he was advised to use the hand set with caution. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.           In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, original bill Ex.C-2, attested copy of job sheet Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose, DGM/Authorized signatory of OP No.3 Ex. OP3/1, true copy of terms and conditions Ex. OP3/2 and closed the evidence.
6.           Written arguments were not submitted neither by the complainant nor by the OPs. The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the mobile set after few months from the date of purchase started creating problem of hanging and auto switch off. Inspite of having visited OP No.2 the service centre of the company many times the defect in the hand set has not been removed and request for refund of money or replacement of the set was turned down. So the OPs have committed deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice. The Ld. counsel pleaded for acceptance of his claim.
7.           The ld. counsel for OP No.3 argued that the complainant has pleaded totally false facts and concealed true facts from this Forum. The complainant had visited OPs only once with problem of hanging. Mobile hand set was checked in the presence of the complainant. Problem was of software, which was rectified and updated and the mobile hand set was delivered to the complainant in OK condition on 25.05.2015. There was no inherent or manufacturing defect. The Complainant had visited the OPs only once. He had never visited the OPs for any kind of complaint after 25.05.2015. OPs are still ready to rectify any defect if it still persists. Thus there was no deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.3 and thus pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.
8.           After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments, we accept the present complaint and find that the OPs have committed deficiency in service by not properly repairing the said mobile set. Hence, we direct the OPs to properly repair/rectify the mobile hand set without charging anything within a period of one month and if the problem still persists again then replace the same with a new one of the same value or refund the amount of Rs.11,500/- within  a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Complainant is also held entitled to the damages suffered by him on account of harassment and mental tension. The damages are assessed at Rs. 2,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. The damages and the costs may be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If the orders are not complied within the stipulate period, it will carry 6% interest till its realization.
9.           The arguments on the complaint were heard on 11.03.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:14.03.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)                          President

 

(Veena Chahal)                        Member

 

(A.B.Aggarwal)                       Member