BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
Complaint No. 142 of 2014
Date of Institution: 3.11.2014
Date of final order: 29.4.2016
Balbir Singh son of Sh. Dardara resident of Uchana Mandi, Tehsil Uchana, District Jind.
….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Deep Mobile, Litani road near Hanuman Mandir, Uchana Mandi (Jind) through its proprietor Sumit Chahal.
- Shree Innovations Samsung Service request, Pathak Market near bus stand Gohana road Jind-126102 through its Manager/Proprietor.
- Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. B-1 Sector 81 phase No.2, District Gotam Budh Nagar, Noida (UP) through its Managing Director.
…..Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
Present: Sh. J.N. Bhardwaj Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Manoj Sheokand Adv. for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva Adv. for opposite party No.2 &3.
ORDER:
The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant had purchased one Samsung Galaxy Core mobile set for a sum of Rs.12,500/- vide invoice No.475 dated 26.11.2013 from opposite party No.1, which is manufactured by opposite party No.3 and opposite
Balbir Singh Vs. M/s Deep Mobile etc.
…2…
party No.2 is service provider. Since the date of purchase of mobile set, the mobile is not working properly i.e. its signal reception strength is poor, ringer speaker does not ring, vibrator of the mobile does not work many times. The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1and told about the problem of mobile set, the opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to remove the defect from opposite party No.2 i.e. service centre. Thereafter, the complainant visited the service center of opposite party No.2 several times for removing the defect of the mobile set but the opposite party No.2 did not remove the defects of the mobile set of the complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay the cost of mobile set i.e. Rs.12,500/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared, the opposite party No.1 has filed the separate written statement and opposite parties No.2 and 3 have filed the joint written statement. The opposite party No.1 has stated in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On merits, it is contended that the answering opposite party has purchased the mobile set from wholesale/distributor of opposite party No.3 and the same was sold to the complainant in intact sealed and packed condition. All the other allegations have been
Balbir Singh Vs. M/s Deep Mobile etc.
…3…
denied by the answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for.
3. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 have contended that the Engineer of the Company rectified the problem of the mobile set and the complainant being satisfied signed the job sheets. As per the policy the company gives one year warranty on the unit, warranty means in case of any problem with the unit the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per company policy. The technology used by the company in manufacturing the World Class Electronic Products is highly sophisticated. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with heavy costs is prayed for.
4. In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, cash memo Ex. C-2 and copy of service request Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party No.2 and 3 have produced affidavit Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.1 has produced affidavit Ex. OP-2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsels of all the parties and perused the record placed on file. The complainant has purchased the mobile phone against a sum of Rs.12,500/- on 26.11.2013 and the same has started giving trouble from the very beginning. The Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that since the purchase of mobile, the mobile is not working properly i.e. its signal reception strength is
Balbir Singh Vs. M/s Deep Mobile etc.
…4…
poor, ringer speaker does not ring, vibrator of the mobile does not work many times.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties have argued that the Engineer of the Company has removed the defects of the mobile set of the complainant and complainant has signed the job sheet and there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties.
7. We have gone through the cash memo Ex. C-2 as well as copy of job sheet Ex. C-3 and also gone through the affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-1 it is very much clear from the perusal of the job sheet Ex. C-3 there was hanging and charging problem in mobile. Moreover, complainant has filed this complaint within warranty period. On the other hand, the respondents have not filed any document that the mobile in question having no problem nor filed any document the problem in question shown in the job sheet has been rectified. The opposite parties also failed to file the affidavit of the Engineer who had removed the defects of the mobile of the complainant at the time of job sheet. It is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.2 and 3. We have no hesitation to allow this complaint. Hence, the complaint is allowed in the interest of jusitce and opposite parties No.2 and 3 are directed to replace the mobile in question of the complainant with a new one of same model having same price and if the same model is not available then to refund the cost of mobile with interest@9% p.a. from the date of order. Order be
Balbir Singh Vs. M/s Deep Mobile etc.
…5…
compliance within one month from the date of receiving the certified copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 29.4.2016
President,
Member Member District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind
Balbir Singh Vs. M/s Deep Mobile etc.
Present: Sh. J.N. Bhardwaj Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Manoj Sheokand Adv. for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva Adv. for opposite party No.2 &3.
Remaining arguments heard. To come up on 29.4.2016 for orders.
President,
Member Member DCDRF, Jind
27.4.2016
Present: Sh. J.N. Bhardwaj Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Manoj Sheokand Adv. for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva Adv. for opposite party No.2 &3.
Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
President,
Member Member DCDRF, Jind
29.4.2016
