Haryana

Karnal

CC/92/2016

Naveen Khetarpal S/o pran Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Laxmi Agency - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Khettarpal

30 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.92 of 2016

                                                             Date of instt.:28.03.2016

                                                               Date of decision:30.09.2016

 

Naveen Khetarpal Advocate son of Shri Pran Nath resident of 1335 sector-9 Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. M/s Luxmi Agency, Link road, opposite Dayal Singh Colony Karnal.

2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-1 Sector-81, Phase-2 Noida District Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh through its MD.

 

                                                                   .…… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

                    Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for opposite parties.

                    

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one Samsung mobile model Galaxy Grand Prima IEMI no.356554066918356/1 from Jai Durga Communication Karnal, the  authorized dealer of the company, for a sum of Rs.13,000/-, vide bill dated 30.3.2015, with a warranty of one year. After 2 months, the said mobile set started giving problems in camera, auto switch off-on. Therefore, in May,2015 he visited the office of opposite party no.1, who upgraded the software, but after two months the same problem occurred. He again visited the office of opposite party no.1 with the problem of vibration, who removed the problem and assured that he would not suffer any problem and if he faced any problem in the unit, the same would be replaced, but the same problem occurred. He again visited the office of opposite party no.1 on 12.1.2016, but at that time opposite party no.1 told that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile and refused to repair the mobile set. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to which he faced mental harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and that the complaint is an abuse of process of law and has been filed with malafide intention just to harass the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the on the complaint of complainant on 9.2.2016 the unit of the complainant was thoroughly checked by the engineers of the company and no problem was found, so just to refresh the unit, only software was upgraded. Thereafter, complainant never approached the opposite parties regarding any problem in the unit. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Aninday Bose Ex.OP1/A and document Ex.OP2 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

6.                It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile model Galaxy Grand Prima from Jai Durga Communication Karnal, vide bill dated 30.3.2015, the copy of which is Ex.C2. As per allegations of the complainant, after 2-3 months the mobile set was not working properly, as camera working was poor and auto switch off-on problems. So, he reported the matter to opposite party no.1, the authorized service centre of the company, who upgraded the software, but again there was same problem, therefore, opposite party no.1 kept the hand set for rectification of defects, but after several efforts the officials of the opposite party no.1 did not rectify the defects and returned the mobile set by saying that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. The complainant has also filed his affidavit in support of his allegations. The copy of the job sheet Ex.C3 clearly shows that the mobile set was having problems during warranty period. To rebut the evidence of complainant opposite parties have not produced any document, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant. It was the duty of the opposite parties either to rectify the defects or in case the defects were not repairable then replace the mobile set of the complainant, but opposite parties did not do so. Hence, it is well proved that the service of the opposite parties was deficient.

7.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile set in question of the complainant with new one of the same value. We further direct the opposite parties   to pay Rs.1100/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 30.09.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member