Haryana

Jind

CC/15/41

Pawan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Om Parkash - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Rajiv Kumar Garg

27 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 40 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 25.3.2015
   Date of final order: 31.5.2016 

Pawan s/o Sh. Hukam Chand r/o H.No. 240/10 Ramrai Gage, Hind.

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
M/s Om Parkash Daulat Ram authorized distributor Samsung Mobile, Indira Bazar, Jind-126102 through its authorized person/signatory.
The Managing Director Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. A25 ground floor, front tower, Mohan co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.
Shree Innovations Samsung Care, Vidyapeeth Marg.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Rajiv Kumar Garg Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva Adv. for opposite party No.2.
          Opposite party No.1 and 3 already ex-parte. 
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased one Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Model No. SM-N7500 mobile set for a sum of Rs.40,000/- on  6.5.2014 from opposite party No.1.  
After purchasing the above said mobile phone, the mobile started giving problems as it auto-on and its scanner not working properly some time. The complainant visited the opposite party No.3 several times for removing the defects of the mobile phone but the defects were not removed by the opposite party No.3. The above said mobile phone became dead as no function of this phone was  working. The mobile phone was still under warranty of one year as he had  purchased the same on 6.5.2014. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay the cost of mobile set i.e. Rs.40,000/-, a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 has appeared  and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum; the complainant has no  cause of action and  locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts.  On merits, it is contended that  the complainant visited the service centre of the company at Jind and solution was provided to him and the unit was repaired. As per the company policy the company gives one year warranty on the unit and whole unit carries one year warranty and in case of any problem with the unit the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced. Without any technical/expert report it cannot be ascertain that the unit is having manufacturing defect. The answering opposite party is one of the renowned company in India and along with other products is engaging in business of manufacturing electronics and its sales. On a single time thousands of units are manufactured and had there been any alleged manufacturing defect during manufacturing of the same, then the same would have occurred in the entire lot. The answering opposite party was not in a receipt of a single complaint from any of its customer who are using the mobile manufactured of the  answering opposite party of the same lot. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for. 
3.    Opposite parties No. 1 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 18.11.2015. 
4.    In  evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Annexure C-1,  copy of  cash memo Annexure  C-2 and  copies of acknowledgment of service request Annexure C-3 to Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite party No.2  has produced the copies of job sheet Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3 and affidavit of   Sh. Anindya Bose Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence.  
5.    We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsels of all the parties and perused the record placed on file. The complainant has purchased the mobile phone against a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 6.5.2014 and after purchasing the above said mobile phone, the mobile giving problems from starting as it auto on and its scanner not working properly. The Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that  since the purchase of  mobile, the mobile is not working properly.
6.    On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that the Service Centre of the  Company has removed the defects of the mobile set of the complainant and complainant has signed the job sheet and there is no fault on the part of the answering opposite party. 
7.    We have gone through the cash memo Annexure C-2 as well as copies   of job sheet Annexure  C-3 to Annexure C-5 and also gone through the affidavit of the complainant Annexure C-1 it is very much clear from the perusal of the job sheets Annexure C-3 to Annexure C-5, the mobile giving problems from starting as it auto-on and its scanner not working properly. Moreover, complainant has filed this complaint within warranty period. On the other hand, the opposite parties have neither filed any document that the mobile in question  is having no problem nor filed any document that problem in question shown in the job sheet has been rectified. The opposite parties also failed to file the affidavit of the Engineer who had removed the defects of the mobile of the complainant at the time of job sheet. It is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  We have no hesitation to allow this complaint. Hence, the complaint is allowed in the interest of jusitce and opposite parties  are directed  to replace the mobile in question of the complainant with a new one  of same model  having same price and if the same model is not available then to refund the cost of mobile  i.e. Rs.40,000/- to the complainant.  Order be complianced within 30 days from the date of orders, failing which the complainant is entitled for the interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 25.3.2015 till its realization.Parties will bear their own litigation expenses.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 31.5.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            Balbir Singh Vs. M/s Deep Mobile etc.
                    
Present:  Sh. J.N. Bhardwaj Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Manoj Sheokand Adv. for opposite party No.1. 
          Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva Adv. for opposite party No.2 &3.

              Remaining arguments heard. To come up on 29.4.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  27.4.2016

Present:  Sh. J.N. Bhardwaj Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Manoj Sheokand Adv. for opposite party No.1. 
          Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva Adv. for opposite party No.2 &3.

         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  29.4.2016