Punjab

Sangrur

CC/359/2016

Gurdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jaidka Communications - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Davinder Sharda

14 Oct 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 359                                                                                                  

                                                                   Instituted on:  25.04.2016

                                                                    Decided on:    14.10.2016

 

Gurdeep Singh aged 33 years s/o Amarjit Singh r/o village Bhalwan Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

 

1      Jaidka Communications Vijay Chowk Opp. City         Police Station Sangrur through its Proprietor/ authorized dealer.

2      Samsung Care Center Sangrur Near Railway       Chowk Sangrur authorized dealer, proprietor.

3.     Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd. B-1, Sec. 81         Phase 2 Noida District Gautam Budde Nagar Uttar   Pardesh.

    ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri Davinder Sharda, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.1&2 :   Exparte.

 

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

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Gurdeep 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 Mobile model A-500 Gold Galaxy A5  from the OP No.1 for Rs.16000/- vide retail invoice number 62 dated 05.04.2016 under one year warranty. From the very beginning of purchase, the said mobile set started giving problems i.e. heat up, set hang, Auto restart and network  for which the complainant approached OP No.2 who kept the mobile set with it on 14.04.2016 for removal of defect  and no job sheet was issued to him and also it failed to repair the cell phone.  The said problems/ defects are manufacturing.  The OP no.2  directed the complainant that  Rs.7000/- will be charged for complete repair though  the OPs are required to repair the same free of charges as it is well within warranty period. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

 

i)      OPs be directed to refund  Rs.16000/-  as price amount 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.10000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

 

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses and also to pay Rs.11000/- as counsel fee.

2.             Notices were sent to the OPs but despite service OPs no.1 and 2 did not appear and as such they were proceeded exparte.  The OP no.3 had appeared through Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.3, preliminary objections on the grounds of concealment of true facts, territorial jurisdiction, abuse of process of law,  and misuse of process of law have been taken up. It has been stated that  the mobile handset in question has been duly rectified and is  perfectly working  and lying in custody of OP No.2 since  14.04.2016 but the complainant is not taking it back with ulterior motive  inspite  of repeated reminder given by the OP No.2. 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 an expert  and qualified  person of central approved laboratories. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.3.

4.             In his evidence, the complainant has produced documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 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 the complainant had purchased a Samsung Mobile model A500 Gold Galaxy A5  from OP No.1  on 05.04.2016 for an amount of Rs.16000/- under warranty of one year which is evident from the retail invoice number 62 dated 05.04.2016 which is Ex.C-2 on record. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that from the very beginning of its purchase the mobile  set started giving problems i.e. heat up, set hang, Auto restart and network  for which the complainant approached OP No.2 who kept the mobile set with it on 14.04.2016 for removal of defect  and no job sheet was issued to him but failed to repair the cell phone.  To prove his version, the complainant has produced on record retain invoice Ex.C-2 and acknowledgement of service request Ex.C-3.

6.             Against the version the complainant, it has been stated by the OPs that the handset in question has been duly rectified and  is perfectly working and complainant can take back the same on any working day.

7.             The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that no job card was ever issued to him but from the perusal of the  record we find that the complainant himself has produced on record acknowledgment of service request Ex.C-3 which was issued by the OP No.2. The complainant has also stated that the defects are manufacturing and are not repairable   but  surprisingly the complainant has not produced on record any document/ evidence which proves the version of the complainant. Even the complainant has not produced on record any expert report which shows that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. Moreover, the complainant has stated in his complaint that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question but we are not understand on what basis the complainant has alleged about the manufacturing defects as the mobile set in question is in the custody of the OPs since 14.04.2016.

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we find no force in the contention of the OPs that the mobile set in question has manufacturing defect and as such we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable to return the  mobile set in question in proper working condition to the complainant to his entire satisfaction, which as alleged by the OP no.3 is lying with the OPs. We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

9.             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

                October 14, 2016

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                  

 Member         Member                  President

 

 

BBS/-