Haryana

Kurukshetra

242/2017

Vijay Laxmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kohli Comm - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Azad

28 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.242 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 10.11.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:28.05.2018.

Vijay Luxmi Soni, resident of Village Kheri Markanda, Tehsil Thanesar, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Kohli Communication, Mohan Nagar, near Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Thanesar, Kurukshetra through its proprietor.
2. M/s. Bansal Communications near Geeta Dwar, Pipli Chowk, Kurukshetra through its proprietor.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-1, Sector-81, Phase-2, Noida, District Gautum Budh Nagar, Uttam Pardesh.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Sanjay Azad, Advocate, for the complainant.

                Sh. Dinesh Sharma, Adv. for the Op No.1.      

                Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the OPs.No.2 & 3.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Vijay Luxmi Soni against Kohli Communication and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set of Samsung Galaxy J-7 bearing IMEI No.358425073144294 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.14,250/- vide bill No.1626 dt. 07.06.2016.  It is alleged that from the very beginning, it was having problem and manufacturing defect in the mobile set and on 10.12.2016, the screen of mobile set stopped working and became totally blackish.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.2 on 21.01.2017 and the Op No.2 told that there is no warranty/guarantee of mobile set screen and received Rs.4129/- for the replacement of screen of mobile set.  It is further alleged that after few months, the screen of mobile set again stopped working and became blackish.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to return Rs.14,250/- and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their replies.  Op No.1 filed the separate reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Ops No.2 & 3 filed the joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the complaint of complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product and the alleged defect needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same; that the complainant in regards to his complaint has approached to the answering Ops on 21.01.2017 and reported display damage problem in his unit and the engineer of company checked the unit and found that the unit is physically damaged/i.e. LCD crack due to mishandling on the part of complainant.  The engineer of service-centre told the complainant that the unit cannot be considered under warranty and the Ops gave the estimate of repair.  The complainant agreed for the same and paid the estimate charges and get his unit repaired.  After that, the complainant never reported any issue and without any cause of action and to grab illegal benefits from the answering Ops, filed the present complaint.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.           

5.             The complainant placed on file affidavit and other documents.  On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops No.2 & 3.

6.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 07.06.2016 for the sale consideration of Rs.14,250/-.  From the perusal of complaint and other documents, it is clear that the unit became defective within the warranty/guarantee period with the defects screen stopped working and became blackish.  The complainant approached the Op No.2 and the Op No.2 received Rs.4129/- for the replacement of screen of mobile set but after some time, the mobile set in question became again defective and the Ops No.2 & 3 did not repair the mobile set.  The complainant approached the Ops several times for repair or replacement of mobile set but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from Op No.3, who is manufacturer of the unit in question.

8.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.3 to replace the hand set of the complainant with new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed to deposit the old hand set along with bill and accessories with the service center of the company.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.3.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.            

Announced in open court:

Dt.:28.05.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member