BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.77 of 2016
Date of Institution: 16.3.2016
Date of Decision: 23.11.2016
Tushar son of Sh. Narinder Sain, aged about 30 years, r/o Gali No.8, Aggarsain Colony, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Wadhwa Mobile Care, Near Jaipur Hospital, Circular Road Sirsa through its Proprietor.
- Samsung Service Center, Behind Sri Bikaner Misthan Bhandar, Barnala Road, Sirsa through its Manager.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi- 110 044, through its Manager.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. K.S. Gill, Advocate for complainant.
Op no.1 exparte
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that on 3.8.2015 he had purchased mobile of Samsung company from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.7990/- vide invoice No.53030 dated 3.8.2015 with one year warranty. After few days of its use, the mobile started dropping the network and used to switch off automatically. The complainant approached the op no.1 in this regard who sent him to op no.2. The op no.2 after inspection of the mobile kept the same with it and asked him to come after 2-3 days. After two-three days, the mobile was delivered to him by op no.2 by saying that mobile is ok but again after few days, the mobile developed the same defect. Again the op no.2 made some repairs but even then the mobile did not work properly. On 8.1.2016, the mobile stopped working upon which he went to op no.2 who kept the mobile with it and issued job card No.4207591277. Thereafter, complainant visited the op no.2 for number of times for taking his mobile but the op no.2 has been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and mobile is lying with op no.2. The complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- from the ops due to deficiency in service and harassment. He got served a legal notice on 27.1.2016 upon the ops, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, none appeared on behalf of op no.1 despite service and therefore, op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. Ops No.2 & 3 have replied that complainant approached the answering ops on 9.1.2016 and the unit of the complainant was made OK. Solution was provided to the complainant and complainant received the unit after full satisfaction. Thereafter, complainant approached on 9.2.2016 vide complaint No.3100540597 and the PBA of the unit got replaced and the set was made OK, but the complainant asked the answering op no.2 to replace the mobile, upon which it was told to the complainant that the unit has been repaired as per the parameters of the company and also as per the company policy, if a unit can be repaired, it cannot be replaced. But the complainant with his ill motive to grab the benefits illegally from the answering ops, did not collect the unit from ops. In fact, it is the answering ops who contacted the complainant many times and asked him to collect his unit, but complainant refused and straightway filed the present complaint. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
4. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of cash/credit memo dated 3.8.2015 Ex.C2, job sheet dated 8.1.2016 Ex.C3, legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C7. On the other hand, ops no.2 & 3 tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of warranty card Ex.R2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel or ops no.2 & 3 and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. According to the complainant, after purchase of the mobile by him on 3.8.2015 the mobile set in question has been repaired by op no.2 for 3-4 times but despite that mobile was having defect. On 8.1.2016, the mobile stopped working and since then it is lying with opposite party no.2. On the other hand, ops No.2 & 3 have averred that complainant approached them on 9.1.2016 vide complaint no.4207591277 and the unit of complainant was made ok and he received the same after full satisfaction. Thereafter, complainant approached them on 9.2.2016 and PBA of the unit got replaced and the set was made ok but complainant has not turned up for taking his mobile. However, there is nothing on file to show that complainant received the mobile set after repair on 9.1.2016 with his full satisfaction and there is no rebuttal to the plea of complainant that mobile is lying with op no.2 since 8.1.2016. The ops no.2 & 3 have not placed on file any job sheet dated 9.2.2016 to show that complainant approached them on 9.2.2016 and there is also nothing on file to show that mobile is in ok condition. As the mobile is lying with op no.2 since 8.1.2016, therefore, complainant is entitled to replacement of the mobile in question with new one.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile of the complainant with a new one of same price and same description within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply this. order A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:23.11.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
