Punjab

Sangrur

CC/700/2015

Mahesh MAlhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jaidka Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ashish Grover

03 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                

                                                Complaint No.  700

                                                Instituted on:    22.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       03.05.2016

 

Mahesh Malhotra S/o Shri Ishwar Chand R/o Kishan Bagh Colony, Street No.9, Nabha Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

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

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

3.             Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFC-1 Tower, 61, Nehru Palace, New Delhi through its M.D./CEO.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

For OP No.3             :               Shri  J.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Mahesh Malhotra, 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 G-360 Galaxy Core Prime bearing IMEI number 357392061075917 for Rs.9500/- vide invoice number 4515 dated 02.01.2015 from OP number 1. It is further averred in the complaint that from the very beginning the above said mobile set is not working properly and that the battery back of the said mobile set is very poor.  It is further stated that after 6 months of the purchase of the said mobile set, it started to give another problem of restart/reboot automatically.  It is further stated that the complainant along with his friend Gurwinder Singh visited authorised service centre of OP number 2 on 15.7.2015 to get the problem sort out, as such, the OP number 2 rectified the same and returned the mobile set to the complainant on the same date.  It is further averred that no job sheet was issued by OP number 2 despite demand of the complainant. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund him the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.9500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase 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 on 15.09.2015.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement of the mobile set in question, that the complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence, that the complainant has sought refund or replacement of the mobile , which is not permissible under the law and also under the terms and conditions of the warranty and that the complainant has never approached the authorised service centre with any kind of problem.    On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 1 vide bill dated 2.1.2015 for Rs.9500/-.  It has been denied that the mobile set in question started to give problems after some days of its purchase. It is further stated that the complainant never approached OP number 2 and told about any problem in the mobile set. It is further denied that the complainant ever visited the OP number 2 on 15.7.2015 with any problem in the mobile set and to get it repaired. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 affidavits, Ex.C-3 copy of expert report, Ex.C-4 affidavit, Ex.C-5 copy of bill and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced  Ex.OP3/1  and Ex.OP3/2 affidavits, Ex.OP3/3 copy of expert report dated 1.4.2016 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 acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-5 is the copy of the invoice dated 02.01.2015 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.9500/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 1.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became defective as there was hanging and network problem and as such the complainant approached the OP number 2 on 15.7.2015, but the problems in the mobile set could not be removed permanently. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that even the Op number 2 refused to issue the job card sheet despite demanding the same from OP number 2.  It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 2 remained to chose exparte and even did not appear to deny this allegation of the complainant that he visited it on 15.7.2015. On the other hand, to support such a contention, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex.C11 and of Shri Gurwinder singh Ex.C-2.  Further the complainant has relied upon the report of expert Shri Damanjit Singh, Ex.C-3 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that he kept/used the mobile set and found that there is problem of restart/reboot automatically and the defect in the mobile set is said to be not curable.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has also produced the report of Harpreet Dass, Service Engineer of the OP number 2 Ex.OP3/3 and his affidavit Ex.OP3/2 wherein he has stated that he received the mobile set in the month of November, 2016 from the learned counsel for the complainant in the premises of the District Forum, Sangrur and after checking the mobile set in question was found in OK condition and there is no manufacturing defect. It is worth mentioning here that in the report as well as in the affidavit Ex.OP3/3 and Ex.OP3/2, it is mentioned that he checked the mobile set in the month of November, 2016, which has yet to come. As such, we feel that the expert report as well as the affidavit of Shri Harpreet Dass are not at all helpful to the case of the OPs and it seems that the affidavit as well as the expert report have been prepared in very casual manner.  In the circumstances, it is clear that the mobile set in question supplied to the complainant is defective one which is beyond repairs.     As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.9500/- being the cost of the mobile set, however, subject to the returning of the mobile set in question along with all the accessories to the Ops at the time of receiving the payment of the mobile set.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.2500/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 3, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member