Punjab

Sangrur

CC/319/2016

Jaspreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Harpreet Singla

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 319                                                                                         

                                                                   Instituted on:  04.03.2016                                                                                    

                                                                   Decided on:    12.08.2016

 

Jaspreet Singh son of Shri Sukhwinder Singh resident of Dariya Patti, Village Ladda, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.   Samsung India Electronic Limited, B-1 Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida, District Gautam Budha Nagar ( UP) through its Managing Director.

2.   M/s Gaurav Communication, Gaushala Road, Near Railway Chowk, School wali Gali, Sangrur through its Proprietor

3. Jaidka Communications, Vijay Chowk, Opposite Police Station, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ partner.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Harpreet Singla,  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1          :      Shri  J.S.Sahni,  Advocate                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.2&3           :     Exparte.

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C. Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member       

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Jaspreet 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 bearing Model Galaxy A-5 from OP No.3 for Rs.25000/- vide invoice no. 5430 dated 26.02.2015 under one year warranty.  In the month of December 2015,  the mobile set in question started creating charging problem and network problem for which the complainant approached the OP No.3 who advised to approach the OP No.2. Then the complainant approached OP No.2  who told that there is software problem and  after installation of software  the OP no.2 handed over the mobile phone to the complainant. At this time the OP No.2 issued job sheet dated 17.12.2015. In the month of February 2016, the said phone again started giving problems of charging, network, back key problem and hanging. Again OP No.2 issued job sheet dated 16.02.2016 to the complainant.  Then the complainant approached the OP no.2 who told that there is manufacturing defect in it which is not curable. Thereafter the complainant requested the OP No.2 to replace the defective mobile set with new one but they did not do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund Rs.25000/-  as price of the cell phone 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.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs no.2 and 3 did not appear and as such OPs no.2 and 3 were proceeded exparte on 12.04.2016. The OP No.1 had appeared through Shri J.S.Sahni Advocate  and filed reply.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.1, preliminary objections on the grounds of concealment of true facts, territorial jurisdiction, abuse of process of law, cause of action and misuse of process of law have been taken up. On merits, purchase of mobile set in question under one year warranty subject to warranty terms and conditions is admitted.  It is denied that the complainant approached the OP no.3 for removing the defect. It is admitted that OP no.2 told the complainant that there is software problem due to mishandling on his part  and OP No.2 installed the updated software and handed over the mobile set  to the complainant in OK condition. It is matter of record that on 16.02.2016 complainant approached the OP No.2 with problem of " back  key and network" and the said problems were duly rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is denied that the OP No.2 told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect which is not curable.  Rather the hand set was duly repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and the complainant signed the satisfaction note on the job sheet dated 16.02.2016. The question of replacement of handset does not arise when the same is perfectly working. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.                 

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP No.1 has tendered documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 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.1, we find that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone of Samsung bearing model Galaxy A-5 from OP No.3 on 26.02.2015 for an amount of Rs.25000/- under warranty of one year which is evident from  retail invoice number 5430 dated 26.02.2015 which is Ex.C-3 on record. The complainant has specifically stated that in the month of December 2015, the said mobile phone started giving problems of charging  and network for which the complainant approached the OPs who issued a job sheet  and installed the software  and assured the complainant that in future mobile phone in question will not give  any problem.  Again in the month of February 2016, the said mobile phone started giving problems of  charging,  network and back key  and hanging and OP no.2 issued job sheet dated 16.02.2016 but this time the OP No.2 told  the complainant that  there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set.   

6.             To prove his version, the complainant has produced on record copy of retail invoice Ex.C-3 and copies of job sheets Ex.C-2 and  Ex.C-4. The complainant has also produced report of an expert namely Kamalpreet, Singh proprietor of Kamal Communication Sangrur Ex.C-1 along with his affidavit Ex.C-5  wherein  Mr. Kamalpreet Singh has opined that  after  checking the said mobile set of the complainant,  he found that mobile set  is giving said problems due to manufacturing defect which are not curable one. Against the report of expert of the complainant, the OPs has  also produced report of an expert namely Kulwant Singh, Service Engineer working with M/s Guarav Communication Gaushala Road, Sangrur, OP no.2  wherein he  has stated that  earlier mobile set of the complainant was received by him with the problems of charging, network and  back key and the said problem  was software problem and he  installed the software and rectified the problems  and set was handed over to the complainant in OK condition and again  our service centre  received the handset of the complainant  from the counsel for the company  and after  inspection, he found  that there was physical damage to the handset of the complainant so the handset was / is not covered under the warranty  and the repair was  only on the chargeable basis. Learned counsel for the complainant has specifically argued that Kulwant Singh is working with M/s Gaurav Communication and being a paid employee  he would support  the contention of M/s Gaurav Communication which is opposite party number 2 in the present case. We find merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant because Mr. Kulwant Singh is not an independent person. In support of his contention learned counsel for the complainant has produced copy of judgment of the  Hon'ble State Consumer Commission Punjab, titled as  Shaminder Pal Singh Vs. Samsung India & another, First Appeal No.311 of 2012,  decided on 17.01.2013. Moreover, the  OP no.1 has not raised the objection of physical damage of the handset of the complainant in the written reply of the OP No.1nor the same was mentioned by the OP no.2 in the job sheet dated 17/12/2015 and dated 16/02/2016  issued to the complainant.  As such we feel that the  OP no.1 has failed to prove their case that there was physical damage to the handset of the complainant.   

7.             The OPs no.2 &3 did not appear to contest the case of the complainant rather they chosen to remain exparte.  As such, the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted.   

 

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable  to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same model or in the alternative to refund an                                                                                                                                                      amount Rs.25000/- which is price amount of the mobile set in dispute  to the complainant subject to return of the defective mobile set in question along with all accessories of it . We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- 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

                August 12, 2016

 

 

 

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