BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.116/14.
Date of instt.: 30.05.2014.
Date of Decision: 11.05.2015.
Shanky S/o Sh. Nagesh Kumar Nirwania r/o Nirwania Street, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Lavish Communication, G-2, Lala Lajpat Rai Complex, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.
2. Bharti Communications, Shop No.117-118, Ist Floor, Lala Lajpat Rai Shopping Complex, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.
3. Samsung Customer Satisfaction, 2nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana).
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Anand Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. V.D.Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.
Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Adv. for Op No.2.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased one mobile set make Samsung bearing IMEI No.1353285060855921, Model G-900H (SM-G900HZWAINU) for a sum of Rs.52,000/- vide invoice No.2054 dt. 24.04.2014 from Op No.1. It is alleged that from the date of purchase of said mobile handset, the said mobile set is not functioning/working properly as the processing of said mobile set is very slow, when complainant run a single application, the mobile set goes hanged, when complainant use its still camera, the mobile set again hanged. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.2 i.e. service-centre on 05.05.2014. It is further alleged that the service-centre returned the said mobile set on the same day in the evening. It is further alleged that the complainant checked the said mobile set and shocked that the problem is as it was. It is further alleged that on the next day i.e. 06.05.2014 the complainant again approached the Op No.2 and submit his mobile set with the same problems and Op No.2 returned the same tot he complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant again checked the said mobile set and again shocked to see that the problems are as it was. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops several times regarding repair/replacement of said mobile set but the Ops did not do so. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately. Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections that the answering Op sold a Samsung bearing IMEI No.1353285060855921 Model G-900h (SM-G900HZWAINU) for sum of Rs.52,000/- vide bill No.2054 dt. 24.04.2014; that the complainant approached the answering Op on 05.05.2014 with the problem that the processing is very slow and when he run a single application, the mobile set has been hanged and on using the still camera the set also hanged. The answering Op advised the complainant to visit the service-centre as the same is located on first floor in the same complex where the answering Op is located. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, it is stated that the answering Op has no liability about the non-functioning of any mobile set. The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ops No.2 and 3 filed the joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that the complainant in regards to his complaint firstly approached the service-centre of the Op at Kaithal on 05.05.2014 with the description that the camera still processing slow and the Engineer namely Raj Kumar thoroughly checked the unit in front of the complainant and no problem was found and it was guided to the complainant about the use of unit and it was also observed that the unit is also working properly as per Q (quality) AMP (parameters) but the complainant was adamant and did not want to understand that the unit is working fine and the complainant was very impatient and again approached on 08.05.2014 with heating after charging problem and upon this so, the Op No.2 called senior Engineer, who checked and used the unit for whole day and used camera, facebook etc. but no problem was found. But the complainant was adamant for replacement of the unit upon which the Engineer replied for any repair and complainant has to show the problem in the unit, but the complainant failed to do so. So, his request for replacement was not genuine. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
6. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased one mobile set make Samsung bearing IMEI No.1353285060855921, Model G-900H (SM-G900HZWAINU) for a sum of Rs.52,000/- vide invoice No.2054 dt. 24.04.2014 from Op No.1. From the date of purchase of said mobile handset, the said mobile set is not functioning/working properly as the processing of said mobile set is very slow, when complainant run a single application, the mobile set goes hanged, when complainant use its still camera, the mobile set again hanged. The complainant approached the Ops several times for repair/replacement of said mobile set but the Ops did not do so. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit (Ex.CW1/A), copy of bill (Ex.C1), copy of job-cards (Ex.C2 to C4). In the job-card (Ex.C2), it is reported in the column of defect description that camera steel, hang processing slow and the said defect was removed. The complainant has also put his signature on the said job-card. In the job-card (Ex.C3), the defects were shown as heating problem and hang problem, the said defects were also removed by the Ops. The complainant has also put his signature on the said job-card. In the job-card (Ex.C4), the minor defects are shown and the same were also removed from the said mobile set. The complainant has also put his signature on the said job-card. So, the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the said mobile set.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the said complaint and direct the Ops to repair the mobile set and change the parts free of cost, if required. No order as to cost. Al the Ops are jointly and severally liable. The complainant is directed to submit the defective mobile set with the Ops within 15 days. Let the order be complied within 30 days. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.11.05.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
