Punjab

Sangrur

CC/491/2018

Kamal Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maya Telecome - Opp.Party(s)

Smt..Gurjit Kaur

18 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR .

                                                                    Complaint No. 491

 Instituted on:   26.11.2018

                                                                   Decided on:     18.10.2019

 

Kamal Jindal son of Surinder Kumar Jindal, resident of H.No.368, Gopal Nagar, Indra Basti, Sunam, District Sangrur 148 028.

                                                          …. Complainant.   

                                                 Versus

1.     Maya Telecome (Mobile & More) Naya Bazar, Sunam (Mobile No.81465-03777, 78888-30007) through its Prop.

2.     Gaurav Communications, Authorised Service Centre, Samsung Mobiles, Street No.2, Near Railway Chownk, Goushala Road, Sangrur 148 001 through its Prop/Partner.

3.     Samsung India Electronics Ltd. 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019 through its Managing Director.

             ….Opposite parties. 

Counsel for the complainant   : Ms.Gurjit Kaur, Adv.              

Counsel for the OP No.1&2    : Exparte.

Counsel for the OP No.3          : Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

Shri Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

ORDER BY:     

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.

1.             The complainant filed this complaint pleading that the complainant purchased one mobile Samsung Note 8 having IMEI number 35201601326462 from OP number 1 vide invoice number 408 dated 14.01.2018 for Rs.67,900/-, which was having one year guarantee/warranty for any type of defect therein.  The grievance of the complainant is that the mobile set in question suffered with heating problem again and again, as such the complainant approached OP number 1, who referred the matter to OP number 2 and the OP number 2 removed the defect saying that it is a minor problem.  Further case of the complainant is that after a few days when the complainant put on the said mobile set on charge, then its charging jack blast suddenly, as such the complainant approached OP number 2 on 21.8.2018 and issued job bill number 4267211641 dated 21.8.2018 and the OP number 2 told the complainant that there is major fault and he has to pay the charges for the same. Further case of the complainant is that though the mobile set in question is under warranty, but the Ops failed to set right the mobile set in question, which is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Lastly, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set in question with a new one of the same make and model or in the alternative refund the price of the said mobile i.e. Rs.67,900/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization and to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, pain and agony and an amount of Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             After the notice being served upon the opposite parties, the opposite party number 3 appeared through Advocate Shri J.S.Sahni and filed written version. In written version taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties and that the OP number 3 has been unnecessarily pleaded as a party to the complaint. As per record of OP number 2 the hand set in question was submitted for repairs on 21.8.2018 and on inspection of handset, its charging socket was found burnt. The burning of certain parts is due to mishandling or due to voltage fluctuation or due to short circuit which is not covered under the warranty conditions. The complainant refused to get the mobile set repaired on charge/payment basis. It is stated further that the mobile set has been physically mishandled by the complainant leading to burning of charging socket. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.  On merits, the sale and purchase of the mobile set is admitted. It is denied that the mobile set started heating again and again and continuously causing this alleged problem. It is stated that the burning of certain parts is due to mishandling or due to voltage fluctuation or due to short circuit.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied by OP.

3.             Record shows that OPs number 1 and 2 did not appear despite service, as such OPs number 1 and 2 were proceeded exparte on 25.01.2019.

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed evidence. The opposite party number 3 has produced documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/6 and closed evidence. 

5.             We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record by the parties as well as heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant purchased one mobile set Samsung Galaxy Note 8 from OP number 1 vide invoice number 408 dated 14.1.2018 for Rs.67,900/-, a copy of which is on record Ex.C-2 and the mobile set was having one year guarantee/warranty for any type of defect therein.  The grievance of the complainant is that after some days, the mobile set started giving problem of heating again and again, as such the complainant approached OP number 1 who advised to approach OP number 2.
Further on 21.8.2018 the complainant visited OP number 2, who told the complainant that there is major fault in the mobile set and has to spent huge amount on its repairs but the complainant did not agree to pay the charges for the same as the mobile set was under warranty. The complainant further requested OP number 2 that the mobile set is under warranty and that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set but OP number 2 flatly refused to entertain the request of the complainant. As such, the complainant has prayed for replacement of the mobile set with a new one. 

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has contended that there is a breach of warranty terms and conditions as the burning of certain parts is due to mishandling or due to voltage fluctuation or due to short circuit, as such this damage of the hand set was not covered under warranty and repair will be done on chargeable basis but the complainant refused to pay the charges, as such, the OPs refused to repair the same.  It is stated further that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the OPs. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has also contended that after purchase of the mobile set, the complainant never visited OP number 3 with any complaint in the mobile set.

8.               Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.67,900/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question which entitles him to avail the after sale services of the OP number 2, which has been manufactured by OP number 3.

9.             In the present case, the complainant has alleged that during the warranty period on 21.08.2018 the set in question suffered the problem of charging jack blast with Samsung C type converter and as such he approached OP number 2 but neither the mobile was repaired nor the mobile was replaced with a new one to the satisfaction of the complainant. Further to show that the mobile set in question is defective one, the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-3 the copy of service order, which shows that there was problem of charging jack.  On the other hand, the OPs have produced nothing on the record to show that the mobile set in question is heated due to the negligence of the complainant.  The affidavit Ex.OP3/4 of Gaurav Kumar is also not helpful to the case of the Ops as the OP number 2 himself chose to remain exparte.    As such, we are of the considered opinion that the mobile set in question became defective during the warranty period, which was even not repaired by the Ops despite repeatedly visiting of the complainant to OP number 2.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the same was not repaired nor the Ops showed any interest during the present proceedings to repair the mobile set in question. As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.

10.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to refund the purchase price of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.67,900/-to the complainant subject to returning of the old defective mobile set to the Ops. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

11.            This complaint could not be decided and order could not be pronounced within stipulated time period because post of President is vacant since 7.8.2018 and Lady Member since 16.09.2018. The President is doing additional duty only for two days a week.

                        Pronounced.

                        October 18, 2019.

 

        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)                (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

                   Member                                       President