DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.222 of 15

                                       DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 06-08.2015

                                                               DATE OF ORDER: 12-05-2016

Anil Kumar son of Shri Ramsrup, resident of village Keharpura, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

              ……………Complainant.

VERSUS                     

1. M/s Jeenu Gift Shop, 52 Adrash High School Market, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani through its Proprietor.

1. M/s Malik Communication, Auth. Samsung Mobile Service Centre, Shop No. 1, 1^st Floor, Ganpatrai Hospital, Opp. Nehru Park, Ghanta Ghar Chowk, Bhiwani through its authorized person.

1. Samsung India Elec. Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-44 through its authorized person.

………….. Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -    Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.

                    Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present:-   Complainant in person.

      Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 3.

      OP no. 1 & 2 exparte.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                        In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 15.06.2015 he had purchased one handset of Samsung Model A-7 of white colour for a sum of Rs. 24,500/- from OP no. 1 vide bill no. 2547.  It is alleged that after purchase of the mobile handset the nikkal polish of the body got removed.  He visited the Ops for the said defect of the mobile handset but the Ops failed to redress the grievances of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence the complainant was deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss.  Now the complainant has claimed the new Hand Set along with compensation and costs by way of filing present complaint.

2.                     OP no. 1 & 2 have failed to come present.  Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.09.2015.

3.                     Opposite party no. 3 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant in regards to his complaint regarding the mobile has approached the service centre of company and reported about scratches on front panel of his mobile.  It is submitted that the engineer of the company checked the unit properly and found that the scratches on front panel are due to mishandling and told the complainant that the warranty of unit is barred due to mishandling and the repair of mobile shall be as per conditions of warranty.  It is submitted that the complainant refused to get repaired the same as per conditions of warranty and started demanding replacement of mobile with a brand new mobile.  It is submitted that the company provides one year warranty on the unit warranty means in case of any problem with the unit the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per company policy.  It is submitted that the answering opposite party is a renowned company in Electronic Products and Commodities and is manufacturing Electronic Products for the past several years.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                     In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence Annexure C-1 and documents Annexure A to Annexure C alongwith supporting affidavit.

5.                     In reply thereto, the counsel for OP has placed on record written statement alongwith supporting affidavit. 

6.                     We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the complainant in person and counsel for OP no. 3.

7.                     The complainant in person reiterated the contents of the complaint.  He submitted that he purchased mobile handset in question from  OP no. 1 for a cost of Rs. 24,500/- vide bill dated 15.06.2015 Annexure A.  After the purchase of the mobile handset the nikkal polish of the body got removed.  He visited the Ops for the said defect of the mobile handset but the Ops failed to redress the grievances of the complainant.

8.                    The counsel for the OP no. 3 reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that the complainant has mishandled the mobile handset in question and as such the warranty of the mobile is barred.  He further submitted that there is no defect in the working of the mobile handset.

9.                     Admittedly, the complainant had purchased mobile handset in question for a cost of Rs. 24,500/- and if the body of the mobile handset lost its nikkal polish in a shorter period then the Ops are liable.  Considering the facts of the case we found that the Ops are liable to rectify the defect of the body of the mobile handset.  Accordingly, we direct the Ops to replace the body of the mobile handset in question with a new one and also to pay Rs. 1200/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.  This order be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of passing of this order.  The complainant is directed to approach the service centre of the company within 7 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:12-05-2016.                                                                  (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                                       President,           

                                                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                         Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                        (Ansuya Bishnoi),

                            Member