Punjab

Sangrur

CC/105/2017

Jagdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jaidka Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ashish Grover

21 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 105                                                                                         

                                                                  Instituted on:    17.03.2017                                        

                                                                  Decided on:     21.07.2017

 

Jagdeep Singh son of Sh. Jaswant Singh resident of Power House Colony, Bathinda, Quarter no.B-119, Thermal Power Colony, Bathinda.      

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Jaidka Communication Bada Chowk, Sangrur through its proprietor/ Partner.

 

2.   Gaurav Communication, Gaushalla Road, Near Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its proprietor/ Partner.

 

3.   Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Limited, 7th and 8th 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. PARTY No.1&2     :       Exparte.

 

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

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

 

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Jagdeep Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Samsung Galaxy  S6 32 GB mobile set from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.34000/- vide invoice no. 4753 dated 27.01.2016 and OP had given warranty of one year.   From the very beginning, the mobile set in question started giving problem  of hanging, poor battery back and non-catching of network of the network provider. In the month of December 2016, the said mobile set started giving problem of Hanging and Internet not working for which the complainant approached the OP No.2 who issued job sheet on 08.12.2016 and kept the said mobile set with it. After repair the set was provided to the complainant but the same problem persisted. The complainant again approached the OP no.2 on 12.12.2016 but no job sheet was  issued to the complainant this time despite demand. The OP no.2 told that there is manufacturing defect which could not be removed. Then the complainant requested the OPs to replace the defective mobile set with new one as it is within guarantee period but OPs 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 the purchase amount of the said mobile phone i.e. Rs.34000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till  realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs no.1 and 2 did not appear and as such OPs no.1 and 2 were proceeded exparte on 28.04.2017. The OP No.3 had appeared through Shri J.S.Sahni Advocate  and filed reply.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.3, preliminary objections on the grounds of concealment of true facts, abuse of process of law, cause of action and misuse of process of law have been taken up. On merits, purchase of mobile set in question under one year warranty subject to warranty terms and conditions is admitted.  It is submitted that the complainant has approached the service centre for the first time after 6 months of purchase on 20.07.2016  and reported problem  of Display Blank  and on inspection of handset it was found damaged internally and due to physical damage the product was out of warranty and repair was done on chargeable basis  to  the satisfaction of the complainant. It is denied that the battery back of the mobile set is very poor. It is submitted that the handset is perfectly working.  The complainant never approached the Op no.2 with any kind of problem in his mobile prior to 20.07.2016.  It is correct that on 8.12.2016  the complainant visited the OP no.2 and the reported problem of hanging and internet was duly rectified. There is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. It is further submitted that 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 i.e. authenticated  report of expert. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.                 

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP No.3 has tendered documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/3 and closed evidence.   

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.3, we find that complainant purchased one mobile model Samsung Galaxy S6 32GB from the OP no.1 for Rs.34000/- vide invoice no. 4753 dated 27.01.2016 which is Ex.C-1 on record. The complainant has stated that from the very beginning, the mobile set in question started giving problem of hanging, poor battery back and non-catching of network of the network provider and in the month of December 2016, the said mobile set started giving problem of hanging and internet not working for which the complainant approached the OP No.2 who issued job sheet on 08.12.2016 which is Ex.C-2 on record and kept the said mobile set with it. After repair, the set was provided to the complainant  but the same problem persisted. The complainant again approached the OP no.2 on 12.12.2016   but the problem could not be rectified. The complainant further stated that the OP no.2 told that there is manufacturing defect which could not be removed despite their efforts. The complainant has produced on record copy of report of an expert alongwith his affidavit Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 wherein it has been stated that mobile was given the problem of  hanging and internet not working. He got checked the said mobile phone and found that the mobile set has manufacturing defect which is not curable one.

6.             On the other hand, OPs has  also produced report of an expert namely Kulwant Singh, Service Engineer working with M/s Guarav Communication Gaushala Road, Sangrur, OP no.2  wherein he  has stated that  problem of hanging  was duly rectified and set was handed over to the complainant in OK condition and  the mobile set is not having any manufacturing defect. Learned counsel for the complainant has  argued that Kulwant Singh is working with M/s Gaurav Communication and being a paid employee  he would support  the contention of M/s Gaurav Communication. We find merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant because Mr. Kulwant Singh is not an independent person. In support of his contention learned counsel for the complainant has produced a ruling of the  Hon'ble State Consumer Commission Punjab, titled as  Shaminder Pal Singh Vs. Samsung India & another, First Appeal No.311 of 2012,  decided on 17.01.2013.

The OPs no. 1&2 did not appear to contest the case of the complainant rather they remain exparte. As such evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted.

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable  to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same                                                                                             model. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.2000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.

8.             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

                July 21, 2017

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg)   (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                     Member            Member                         President

 

 

 

BBS/-