Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/708/2010

Rajwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Om Communications, - Opp.Party(s)

M.S. Kahlon

23 Feb 2011

ORDER


CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-IIPlot No. 5-B, Sector 19-B, Madhya marg, Chandigarh - 160019
CONSUMER CASE NO. 708 of 2010
1. Rajwinder Singh Son of Sh. Sajjan Singh aged 30years R/o Stabgarh P.O. Chhat Teh. Dera Bassi, Dist. S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. M/s Om Communications, Booth No. 71, Sector 35 -C, Chandidgarh.2. M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Cabin No. 2, First Floor, SCO No. 1034-1035, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 23 Feb 2011
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

                            

Complaint Case No   : 708 of 2010

Date of Institution :  29.10.2010

Date of  Decision   :  23.02.2011

 

Rajwinder Singh s/o Sh. Sajjan Singh, R/o Stabgarh, P.O. Chhat, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

 

….…Complainant

                   

V E R S U S

 

[1]  M/s Om Communications, Booth No. 71, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

 

[2]  M/s SAMSUNG Indian Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Cabin No.2, 1st Floor, SCO No. 1034-1035, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

                           ..…Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:     SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA               PRESIDENT

SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI                MEMBER

            MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA                 MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT: None for the Complainant.

           OPs No.1 & 2 ex-parte.

               

          

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

­­­­­­­

 

          Concisely put, the Complainant purchased one SAMSUNG mobile handset (Model 55233) from OP No.1 vide Bill No. 3876, dated 17.11.09, for an amount of Rs.9200/-. It was alleged that the said mobile handset turned out to be defective right from the very beginning, giving troubles to the Complainant on one account or the other, due to which he had experienced great loss of time and mental harassment to get it set right time and again from the OPs. The OPs made futile efforts to rectify the defects and in the process the Complainant had been made a shuttle cock between OP No.1 and the service centre (OP No.2). When the OP No. 2 demanded a sum of Rs.3000/- from the Complainant to set right the defect in the mobile handset, which was well within the warranty period, the Complainant requested the OPs to replace the mobile handset with a new one or in the alternative, to refund the cost price of Rs.9200/-, but to no avail. Even the legal notice got served by the Complainant upon the OPs, failed to elicit desired results. Hence, the present complaint has been filed, alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

 

2]        Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of OP No.1, therefore, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte on 22.12.2010. 

 

3]        On behalf of OP No.2, one Sh. Anil Saini, authorized agent has put in appearance and sought time to file reply. Thereafter, nobody has appeared on behalf of OP No.2, therefore, OP No.2 was also proceeded against exparte on 28.01.2011. 

 

4]        Since none appeared for the Complainant on 23.02.2011, OP Nos. 1 & 2 already being exparte, therefore, we proceed to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the Complainant.

 

5]        Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

6]        We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant (OPs No.1 & 2 being ex-parte). As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]   The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having purchased one SAMSUNG Mobile handset (Model 55233) from OP No.1 for Rs.9200/- on 17.11.2009 and that the said mobile handset developed certain defects during the warranty period, which could not be rectified by the OPs, have been well established. It is also on record that the handset was sent to OP No. 2 on 21.9.2010 with the problem of “restart after switching off the mobile phone”. This date is well within the warranty period of one year from the date of purchase of the mobile handset. The Complainant further says that he had repeatedly visited OP No. 2, which is the Service Center, for getting the mobile set repaired, but nothing was done to remedy the situation and eventually, instead of repairing the mobile handset to the satisfaction of the Complainant, OP No. 2 demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- from the Complainant to set right the defects in the mobile handset. This demand made by OP No. 2 from the Complainant was wholly illegal, unjustified and unreasonable, as the mobile handset was still within the warranty period of one year. Finally, Complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs on 14.10.2010, asking the OPs to either replace the mobile set or return the invoice price of Rs.9200/-, as also pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment, but the OPs took no action on the legal notice. This has led to the present complaint.

 

ii]  Notice was served on both the OPs. OP No.1 never appeared in the Forum and was proceeded against ex-parte on 22.12.2010. On the same lines, notice was also served on OP No. 2 and one Mr. Anil Saini, Authorized Agent put up his appearance in the initial stage of the case and thereafter, nobody came to attend proceedings in the Forum. As such, OP No. 2 was also proceeded against ex-parte on 28.01.2011. 

 

 

iii] Sh. M.S. Kahlon, Advocate for the Complainant had appeared during the earlier dates of the proceedings i.e. on 08.11.2010, 22.12.2010 and 28.01.2011, but was not present on the date of final arguments i.e. 23.02.2011.

 

 

iv]  As the case made out by the Complainant is very well established and fully proved through his complaint, the affidavit, the invoice enclosed (Annexure c-1), the warranty for the handset (Annexure C-2), the job card dated 21.09.2010 (Annexure C-3) and legal notice dated 14.10.2010 (Annexure C-4) and at the same time, no one from OPs has appeared to defend their case or to rebut and contradict the allegations made by the Complainant against them, we have to rely and accept the version of the Complainant, based on the aforesaid documents. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the present complaint is well founded and based on considerable merit, weight and substance. Hence, it deserves acceptance. We therefore, decide the complaint in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs and pass the following order.

 

7]        The OPs shall, jointly and severally, make the following payments to the Complainant:-

 

(i)  The OPs shall pay the sum of Rs.9200/- being the original invoice price of the new mobile handset purchased by the Complainant from OP No.1.

 

(ii) The OPs shall pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant, on account of selling a wholly defective mobile set to him.

 

(iii)   The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant.

 

8]        The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall, jointly and severally, pay Rs.14,200/-, along with interest @18% per annum to the Complainant from the date of purchase of the mobile handset i.e. 17.11.2009, till the date of realization, besides paying the costs of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.

 

9]      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, the file be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced

23.02.2011

 

                          Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                Sd/-                                          

                                   (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

 

 

                                      Sd/-    

(MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER


MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBERHONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER