Punjab

Sangrur

CC/546/2016

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s S.R.Sales - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ramit Pathak

22 Feb 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 546                                                                                         

                                                                     Instituted on:   08.09.2016                                                                                 

                                                                      Decided on:    22.02.2017

 

Jaswinder Singh son of Didar Singh resident of H.No.362, Ram Nagar Basti, Opposite Railway Station, Sangrur.       

                                                        …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     M/s S.R.Sales Opposite Jyoti Sarup Gurudwara Sahib Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Prop./partner

 

2.   Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Limited, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower  Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044 Manager/ M.D./Chairman.

 

3.  Gaurav Communication, Near Railway Station Chowk, Sangrur through its Prop/partner (authorized service center of Samsung).

                                                ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Ramit Pathak Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2          :      Shri  J.S.Sahni,  Advocate                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1&3     :       Exparte.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

     

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Jaswinder Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Samsung mobile bearing Model J-7 from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.14,999/- vide invoice no. RI-1548 dated 29.02.2016 under one year warranty.   On 30.08.2016,  the mobile set in question instantly switched off for which the complainant approached the OP No.1 who advised to approach the OP No.3. Then the complainant approached OP No.3  and after inspection/checking OP no.3 told the complainant that display is damaged and also demanded Rs.7500/- for repair of the mobile set.  Thereafter the complainant visited  to OP no.1 and requested to replace the mobile set with new one or to refund the price amount but OP no.1 refused to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

 

i)      OPs be directed to replace the mobile set with new one of same model or in the alternative to refund the entire amount  paid by him,

 

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.22000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

 

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs no.1 and 3 did not appear and as such OPs no. 1 and 3 were proceeded exparte on 20.10.2016.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.2,  it is submitted that  the mobile set in question was checked/ inspected  by expert engineer of OP No.3 and he told the complainant that  display of the mobile set is damaged/ broken due to some impact.  it is denied that the OP no.3 refused to repair the same.  The OP no.3 also told the complainant that  due to damage caused to the display the handset is not covered under warranty and it is breach of warranty terms and conditions hence repair will be done on chargeable basis. The estimate of repair was given to the complainant but he refused to get the same repaired on chargeable basis.  The complainant himself has been negligent in using his handset leading to breaking of 'Display' of the handset. Further, the complainant failed to prove on record that handset in question cannot be repaired, thus he is not entitled for replacement of handset.

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.2 has tendered an affidavit Ex.OP2/1 and closed evidence.

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.2, we find that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone of Samsung company model J-7 from OP No.1 on 29.02.2016 for an amount of Rs.14999/- under warranty of one year which is evident from retail invoice number RI-1548 dated 29.02.2016 which is Ex.C-4 on record. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that on 30/08/2016 the mobile set in question started giving problem of switched off for which he approached the OP no.3 who inspected the mobile set inquestion  and told that display of the mobile set damaged for which OP No.3 demanded Rs.7500/- for its repair.  But, OP no.3 refused to  repair  the mobile set  even the same was within the warranty period. The OP No.3 also issued job sheet.

6.             To prove his version, the complainant has produced on record copy of retail invoice Ex.C-4 and copy of job sheet dated 30/08/2016 Ex.C-5. The complainant has also produced report of an expert namely Damanjit Singh Ex.C-3 along with his affidavit Ex.C-2  wherein  he has opined that  after thorough checking and as per his knowledge he found that there is manufacturing defect in the  hand set of the complainant due to which the same is not in a working condition   and the defect  in the mobile set is of such a nature  that it is not curable at all.

7.             Against the expert evidence of the complainant, the OP no.2 has not produced any report of their expert to explain that there is no manufacturing defect in it  and the mobile set is repairable rather the OPs no.2  himself has stated that the set in question is repairable only on chargeable basis.  It is not disputed that the  mobile set in question was within the warranty period  when the defect in the mobile set  was developed. So, we feel that the OPs are liable to refund the price amount  of the mobile set in question as  the same was within the warranty period .  The OPs no. 1 and 3 did not appear to contest the case rather they chosen to remain exparte. As such the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record. In case titled as Head, Marketing and Communication, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and others, 2007(1) CPJ 120, Hon'ble Union Territory Consumer Commission Chandigarh has upheld the order passed by the District  Forum with regard to refund of the costs of handset.

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable  to refund an                                                                                                                                                      amount Rs.14999/- which is price amount of the mobile set in dispute  to the complainant subject to return of the defective mobile set in question alongwith its accessories . We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.2000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and  to pay Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.

9.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                February 22, 2017

 

 

 

 ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)      (Sarita Garg)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                         

 Member                      Member                      President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-