Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1        Ms.Sharandeep Kaur,complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12  & 13 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  on the allegations that complainant has purchased Samsung mobile  with IMEI No. 352240071136781 vide bill No. 1950 dated 13.10.2015 for Rs. 14,350/- from the opposite party, as such complainant becomes the consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act,1986.  Some time mobile was working properly but immediately after some time the same has been giving problem like hanging problem. The matter was reported to opposite party No.1, who referred the complainant to approach opposite party No.2. Complainant approached opposite party No. 2 and deposited the mobile for repair on the following dates :-

But inspite of sending the mobile to the service centre of opposite party No.1, the mobile set is still having same defect . Now the  mobile is not functioning and is lying idle with the complainant . The complainant made so many requests to the opposite parties to replace the mobile set with new one or in the alternative to refund the price of the same. But the opposite parties failed to replace the same  or to refund the price of the mobile set. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint :-

1. Opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set with new one or in the alternative to refund the cost of the mobile set i.e. Rs.14,350/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase till payment
2. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

2.       Initially opposite parties No.1 to 3 did not put in appearance and were ordered  to be proceeded against ex-parte. But later on  Smt.Preeti Mahajan,Adv.appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3 and she was allowed to join the proceedings at that stage.

3.       In her bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence  her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of warranty card Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.

4.       We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for the opposite party No.3 as well as written synopsis of arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party No.3.

5.       It is not disputed that complainant purchased Samsung Mobile  having IMEI No. 352240071136781 vide bill No. 1950 dated 13.10.2015 for an amount of Rs. 14350/- from opposite party No.1. As such the complainant is the consumer under the definition  of Consumer Protection Act6, 1986. It is the case of the complainant that she approached the opposite party No.1 for the repair of the mobile hand set in dispute because there was problem of hanging who referred the complainant to approach the repair centre i.e. opposite party No.2. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 4.3.2016, 18.11.2015, 6.2.2016 and 23.2.2016 respectively. But, however, the problem in the mobile handset has not been cured so far. In such a situation the opposite parties are liable either to replace the mobile hand set in question with new one or in the alternative to refund the price of the mobile hand set for Rs. 14350/- alongwith interest. She has also claimed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000/- besides litigation expenses to be assessed by this Forum.

6.       Both the opposite parties did not appear despite due service yet during the course of the proceedings, opposite party No.3 appeared and it was allowed to join the proceedings at that stage. Opposite party No.3 has submitted written arguments to deny the claim of the complainant . It is admitted that hand set in question has been submitted with opposite party No.2 on 18.11,.2015, 6.2.2016, 23.2.2016 and 4.3.2016. On 18.11.2015 reported problem was ‘Hand and processing slow’ which was duly rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant by updating the software. On 6.2.2016 the reported problem was ‘slow processing’ but on checking handset it was found to be perfectly working and the complainant was satisfied with its working. On 23.2.2016 the reported problem was ‘no power’ and it was duly rectified and handset was delivered back in OK condition. On 4.3.2016 handset was submitted with the opposite party No.2 but no problem was found on checking and it was perfectly working. Thereafter complainant never approached opposite party No.2 with any kind of problem in her handset.

7.       But, however, these contentions of the opposite party No.3 cannot be entertained for the reasons that  they have not filed any written reply to the complaint filed by the complainant nor any evidence in support of their contentions has been led for the reasons best known to them. However, the fact that mobile handset was submitted for repairs on four occasions by the complainant shows that handset was not working properly and it was on that account that the complainant had to approach to opposite party No.2 time and again for repair of the mobile handset in dispute. As such the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As such the opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile hand set of the complainant to her satisfaction without charging any repair charges from her , within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which, opposite parties shall be liable to refund sale price of the mobile handset in dispute to the tune of Rs. 14,350/- to the complainant and the complaint stands allowed accordingly. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 06.09.2016

/R/