Haryana

Ambala

CC/79/2017

Arvind Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Parveen Kumar Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Kumar

25 May 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 79 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 10.03.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 25.05.2018

 

 

Arvind Kumar Sharma son of Late Shri Shammi Sharma, resident of village Saha, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       M/s Parveen Kumar Communication near Bus stand, Saha, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala through its prop/Authorised Signatory-Parveen Kumar

2.       Samsung India Elect. Pvt. Ltd. through  its Authorised Signatory, 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFCI Town, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

3.       Kohli Samsung Service Centre through its Authorised Signatory, Behind Govt. College, Near Mulakh Raj Cycle Store, Nera Kabdi Bazar, Ambala

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender  Kumar, Member.            

                   Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

 

 

Present:       Sh. Deepak Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for the OP Nos.2 & 3.

OP No. 1 ex parte v.o.d. 25.04.2017.

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Samsung Galaxy J2(6) Mobile phone SM-J210FZDDINS bearing *352602/08/455876/3* & *352603/08/455876/1* from OP no.1 for  a sum of Rs. 9500/- on 10.09.2016 with one year warranty. After purchasing the mobile phone at the shop of the OP No.1 complainant open the box and insert  the sim in the mobile phone under the supervision of the OP No.1, thereafter the mobile phone was on but complainant received shock to see that within 10 minutes, the mobile phone became switch off automatically. The complainant tried to switch on the mobile, but of the best efforts of complainant as well as employee of the OP No.1. After checking of mobile phone by the OP No.1 was found that mobile phone is a defective one.  The OP No.1 alongwith complainant also contacted the OP No.3 who also after inspection  told that mobile phone is defective one, but he refused to replace the same without the permission of the OP No.2. He further stated that since date of purchase complainant approached the Ops several times, but the Ops always putting-off complainant by one way or the other and Ops are not giving any sufficient response to the request of complainant. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 12.11.2016 upon the Ops. Thus, there is a clear deficiency in service on part of the Ops. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notice issued to Op No1 but none has turned up on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.04.2017. Upon notice, OP Nos. 2 & 3 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that Op has an online system to enter all claims/complaints vide IEMI/Sr.no. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per details mentioned in the compliant, no details found in the online system of  OP, which means that there is no problem in the unit. They further submitted that the OP provides 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 warranty policy. It is also submitted that the OP was and is still ready to repair the unit as per warranty policy, so there is no deficiency in service on part of Ops and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.               To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X with documents as annexure C-1 to C-5 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP Nos.2 & 3 tendered affidavit as Annexure RW-1/A with documents as Annexure R-1 to R-2 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file. It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased mobile in question from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 10.09.2016  amounting Rs. 9500/- with one year warranty as per Annexure C-1 and OP No.2 is manufacturer of the handset and OP No.3 is service centre of the OP No.2. The complainant has alleged that after purchase of the mobile at the shop of the OP No.1, the complainant opened the box and inserted the sim in the mobile under the supervision of the OP No.1. Thereafter, the mobile phone was on but after 10 mintues mobile in question become switch off automatically and employee of the Op No.1 tried to switch on but could switch on despite best efforts made by the employees of the OP No.1 which is tantamount that it is manufacturer defect and complainant requested to OP No.1 to replace the same but he refused the same.   The complainant also sent the notice to Ops No.1 to 3 as Annexure C-1/A and postal receipts are Annexure C-2 & c-4 & acknowledgment as Annexure C-5. The OP Nos.2 & 3 have filed the written statement  and alleged that the if any product having any manufactured defect mere alleging the defect cannot be determined on simplicitor  submission of the complainant and need a proper analyst test report to confirm the same.

5.                During the pendency of this case, the complainant has also moved an application for sending the mobile to any technical expert regarding any manufacturing defect. Application was allowed filed by complainant v.o.d. 13.04.2018 and principal Govt. Polytechnic Ambala was ordered to appoint some expert person in trade of electronic and Sh. Sandeep Goyal was appointed as  Local Commissioner and he has submitted the report in this Forum on 27.04.2018 and inspection report of Local Commissioner is as under:-

“Inspection of the above said mobile was carried out on 25.04.2018 at 10.00 A.M in the presence of Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma, complainant and Sh. Kapil Sachdeva (representative of Sh. Rajiv Sacheva, Advocate). On inspection it is found that there is no physical damage to the mobile. The display of mobile is not working. There is some problem in the printed circuit board (PCB) of the mobile. It seems that there is some technical or manufacturing defects in the PCB of the Samsung Galaxy-J2(6)Mobile in question”. The Ops have not rebutted the report of Local Commissioner.

6.                We have gone through the report which clearly shows that the mobile  in question was not working properly as it was having problem of the PCB of the Samsung Galaxy-J2(6) Mobile  in question there is some technical/manufactured defect. So, the report of Local Commissioner clearly shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as they have sold  the defective mobile to the complainant.

7.                In view of above discussion, the present complaint is deserve to be acceptance and same is hereby allowed with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To replace the faulty mobile with a new one of the same model if they are not in position to replace the mobile then to refund the cost of mobile amounting Rs.9500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization

 (ii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental harassment & cost of litigation.

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 Announced on : 25.05.2018

                    

 

 

 

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)       (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)          (D.N. ARORA)

Member                                 Member                                      President