DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.430 of 13.10.2016

                                      Decided on:           10.1.2018

Mrs. Puja Puri wife of Sh.Pawan Puri Advocate, aged about 53 years, 206, Sewak Colony, Patiala.      

                                                                                    …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. India Electrolux Private Limited, Bipl PPH, Square-Sector 43, DLF, Golf Pourse Road Gurgaon, Haryana through its M.D.

2. Samsung Care, S.C.O. 01, 1^st Floor, City Centre Market, Bhupindra Road, Patiala.

3. Virk Electronics Shop No.8, Main Road, Lehal Colony, Patiala.

4. Samsung India Pvt. Ltd.,20^th to  24 Floor,Two Horizon Centre C/o road Section 43,DCF, Phase V,Gurgaon(Haryana)-12202 through its Managing Director.                                                                                               …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                                       

ARGUED BY:                                

                                      Smt.Puja Puri, complainant in person.

                                      Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.

                                      Sh. J.S.Sandhu,Advocate, counsel for

                                      Opposite parties No.2&4.

                                      Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone J1 of Samsung Company from Op no.3 for a sum of Rs.6300/ on 17.10.2015. It is averred that after a few days of the said purchase, the mobile phone started to hang on and also its touch screen stopped functioning. On 6.5.2016, the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.2, who after rectifying the problem returned the mobile phone on 6.6.2016.After using the mobile phone for a few days, the complainant found that the fault in the mobile phone still persisted and she again deposited the mobile phone with Op no.2 on 29.6.2016. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of OP no.2 several times but the OP did not give any satisfactory reply. On 15.9.2016 Op no.2 collected I.D. proof and copy of bill of the mobile phone and also assured the complainant that a new mobile phone would be delivered to the complainant by Op no.1 within 15 days. The complainant again visited the office of Op no.2 several times and Op No.2 assured the complainant that the needful would be done by Op no.1.On 8.10.2016, OP no.2 flatly informed the complainant that Op no.1 was not responding to its calls as such OP no.2 showed its inability to take any action. As a result the complainant underwent a lot of harassment at the hands of the OPs. The problem occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act), 1986.
2. On notice, OP no.1 did not appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex-parte. Whereas Ops No.2&4 appeared through counsel and filed their reply to the complaint. Op No.3 appeared through counsel but after filing written statement it failed to appear and was ultimately proceeded against ex-parte.
3. The only plea taken by OPs No.2&4 in its written statement that complainant got the mobile phone repaired twice i.e. on 6.5.2016 and 15.9.2016 and both time the problem was duly rectified by the service centre of OP no.2 free of cost and also to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant never visited the office of the OP no.2.Thisshows that the mobile phone of the complainant is working properly. As such OPs cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services to the complainant. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence her sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed her evidence.
5. The ld. counsel for OPs No.2&4 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Anindya Bose, DGM of Samsung India Elec. Pvt. Ltd. and closed the evidence of OPs No.2&4.
6. We have heard the complainant, the ld.counsel for OPs No.2&4, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld.counsel for OPs No.2&4 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. Ex.C1 is the invoice whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from Op no.3 for a sum of Rs.6300/- on 17.10.2015. Ex.C2 is the job sheet whereby the complainant deposited her mobile phone with Op no.2 on 6.5.2016 and the OP no.2 after rectifying the problem returned the mobile phone to the complainant on 6.6.2016 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C3.Ex.C4 is the job sheet dated 29.6.2016 whereby the complainant again deposited her mobile phone with OP no.2.Ex.C5 is the job card dated 15.9.2016, whereby OP no.2 collected some documents from the complainant. Since 29.6.2016, the mobile phone has been lying with Op no.2 who has neither rectified the problem nor returned the mobile phone to the complainant. Whereas, the plea of the OPs No.2&4 is that the complainant visited the office of Op no.2 on 6.5.2016 and 15.9.2016 .On perusal of the document Ex.C5 i.e. dated 15.9.2016, it is evident that OP no.2 collected certain documents from the complainant on 15.9.2016 and it did not return the mobile phone to the complainant.
8. Today, during the course of arguments also the ld.counsel for OPs No.2&4 argued that it returned the mobile phone of the complainant to her after rectifying the problem on 15.9.2016.Though OPs No.2&4 have taken this plea, but they have failed to produce on record any single documentary evidence which may show that the mobile phone was returned to the complainant. In the absence of any documentary evidence on record, we have no reason to disbelieve the complainant that her mobile phone has been lying with OP no.2 since 29.6.2016.The problem occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs No.2&4 to refund an amount of Rs.6300/- i.e. the price of the mobile phone to the complainant. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs No.2&4 within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 10.1.2018               

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER