BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 698 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 15.11.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 07.04.2011 |
Baldev Singh r/oH.No.5295-A, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1. M/s Anmol Watches & Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO 1012, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh 2. M/s A.M.Services authorized service dealers of Samsung Mobiles, Cabin No.2, SCO 1034-1035, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. 3. Mr.Vikram Area Manager, SCO 4, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER Argued by:Complainant in person. OP No.1 exparte None for OPs No.2 and 3. --- PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER Succinctly put, son of the complainant namely Sartaj Singh purchased mobile from OP-1 for Rs.3650/- vide bill dated 27.08.2010. After 3 days of its purchase, the camera and memory card stopped working and therefore, the complainant handed over the same to OP-2 for its repairs. Thereafter, the complainant made repeated visits to get the mobile repaired but he was told that it could not be repaired due to non-availability of parts. The complainant approached OP-3 and requested for refund of its price but OP-3 replaced the defective set with a new mobile phone. As per the complainant, the new mobile phone developed the same problems and consequently he again requested for refund its price but to no effect. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 2. In their written reply, OPs No.2 and 3 admitted that earlier mobile set was defective and the same was replaced with a new set on 19.10.2010. It has been pleaded that the complainant failed to produce the set for checking the defect, if any. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. OP-1 was duly served but nobody appeared on its behalf, hence, it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 27.12.2010. 4. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. 6. It is the admitted case of the complainant that some snag developed in the mobile set, so he approached the OP-2 on 09.09.2010 and the mobile set in question was handed over to OP-2. When the OP-2 examined the same, it was found that the mobile set was beyond repairs so they had replaced it with a new mobile on 19.10.2010. The complainant further alleged that the new mobile set had also started giving the same problems and the body of the set was replaced by the OPs. During the proceedings of the present case, OP-3-Sh.Vikram appeared in person and he offered a brand new mobile set of the same model to the complainant but the complainant did not accept the same. It appears that the sole motive of the complainant was to get compensation, otherwise there was no hindrance in his way to accept the brand new mobile set from the OP-3. The complainant has not been able to show any deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 and 3 and rather it was the motive of the complainant to get compensation from this Forum. 7. In view of the above findings, we do not any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. Sd/- sd/- 07.04.2011 | [Dr. (Mrs) Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | cm | Member | | Presiding Member |
| | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | | 
