Punjab

Sangrur

CC/350/2015

Sham Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mobile World - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    350

                                                Instituted on:      27.05.2015

                                                Decided on:       01.01.2016

 

Sham Lal Sharma C/o Geroge Medical Point, Near Sugar Mills Gate, Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Mobile World, Katehra Chowk, Dhuri, District Sangrur.

2.             Gaurav Goyal C/o Samsung Service Centre, Gowshala Road, Sangrur.

3.             Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. B-1, Sector 81, Phase-2, Distt. Noida Gautam Budha Nagar (UP)

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Ashi Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.3              :               Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Sham Lal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one mobile set having serial number 354799067130491 from OP number 1 for Rs.8200/-.  It is further averred that a voice problem developed in the mobile set for the last three months, as such, he approached so many times to the OP number 1, who further sent the complainant to OP number 2, but the OP number 2 also failed to set right the mobile set despite his best efforts.  The OP number 2 further returned the mobile set after keeping the same for a month with him. It has been further averred that the complainant has spent a lot of money for visiting the OP number 2 from Dhuri to Sangrur, but the mobile set could not be repaired/set right by the Ops.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the cost of the mobile set and further claimed an amount of Rs.40,000/- for mental tension, agony and litigation expenses etc.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The hand set of the complainant was last received on 5.5.2015 with the problem of handset ‘dead’, the PBA board was duly replaced with a new one and hand set was delivered back to the complainant in OK condition to his satisfaction. It is stated further that the present complaint is gross misuse of process of law.  It is stated further stated the complainant submitted the mobile set with OP number 2 for the first time on 24.4.2015 after six months of its purchase, with hanging problem which was duly rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant by updating the software.  It is further averred that the performance of the mobile set depends upon the physical handling of the product apart from installation and downloading of various mobile applications, games etc.  It has been further averred that the complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence. Further the purchase of the mobile set by the complainant on 14.10.2014 has been admitted. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.  It is admitted that the OPs are only liable to repair or replace the defective parts of the product in question and the complainant has failed to prove on record that hand set in question cannot be repaired, thus he is not entitled for replacement or refund of the price.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 3 has been denied.

 

3.             Record shows that OPs number 1 and 2 were proceeded exparte.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of bill, Ex.C-2 copy of service sheet, Ex.C-3 copy of bill, Ex.C-4 affidavit, Ex.C-5 report of expert dated 8.2.2015 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit of Sunil Bhargav, Ex.OP3/2 affidavit of Kulwant Singh, Ex.OP3/3 copy of expert report, Ex.OP3/4 copy of affidavit of Sham Lal and closed evidence.

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             Ex.C-3 is a copy of the bill dated 14.10.2014 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.8,200/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 1. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the mobile set in question suffered problem of voice and  as such approached the OP number 1 so many times, who advised him to approach OP number 2 and the OP number 2 removed the problem by updating the software.  It is the case of the complainant that same problem arose in the mobile set, but the OP number 2 failed to remove the defects despite keeping the mobile set in question for one month with it.  The record shows that OPs number 1 and 2 are exparte and they chose to not to contest the case in hand, as such they were proceeded exparte.  In the present case, the complainant has also produced an expert report of Babbu Telecom, a bare perusal of which shows that it has been written therein that the defect can be removed only by the OP/company, but there is nothing written therein that the mobile set is beyond repairs or it suffers from any manufacturing defect.  As such, we feel that as per the own expert of the complainant, the mobile set in question is worth repairable.   In the circumstances of the case, we find that since the mobile set in question developed defects within the warranty period, it requires to be at least repaired by OP number 2 by making it in the working order as the same was within the warranty period.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 2 and 3 to repair the mobile set in question and make it in fully working condition without charging any amount from the complainant. It is made clear that the complainant shall deposit the mobile set with OP number 2 under proper receipt and thereafter the OP number 2 shall hand over the complainant the mobile set in question duly repaired and in working order within seven days.  We further order the Ops number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1500/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses. 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                January 1,2016.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member