Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/136/2014

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Narinder Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sh AK Sharma

07 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                                    Consumer Complaint No.136 of 2014

                                                                                                                    Date of institution:  16.10.2014                                                                                                                                                   Date of decision   :  07.04.2015

Rakesh Kumar aged about 31 years, son of Sh.Kuldip Raj, resident of House No.114, Ward No.2, Near PNB Bank, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Narinder Enterprises, Cinema Road, Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its concerned signatory.
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.,B-1,Sector 8 Phase 2, Noida District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.through its M.D./Chairman.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

            Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.                                                    Smt. Veena Chahal, Member.

Present :     Sh.Amit Kumar Sharma,counsel for the complainant.                         Sh.G.S.Nagra,counsel for OP no.2                                                     Opposite party No.1 exparte

 

 

ORDER

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                   Complainant Rakesh Kumar resident of Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 11,12,&14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                On 16.10.2013 the complainant purchased a mobile handset make Samsung Core for an amount of Rs.13,000/- including VAT against invoice No.2752 with a warranty of one year. The problems of hanging automatically disconnected during the running calls started occurring in the mobile hand set. The complainant visited OP no.1 for the repair of the same who told the complainant that it is due to software and hardware problem and they will remove the same. The OP no.1 updated the software of the mobile hand and returned the same back on the same day with the assurance that now there will occur no problem in the mobile hand set. No receipt/job letter was issued by OP no.1 in this regard but the problem was still existed. The complainant again visited the OP no.1 but they refused to repair the mobile hand set. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint for a direction to the OPs either to replace the mobile hand set with new one or to refund the price of the same i.e. Rs.13000/-, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the harassment and the mental agony suffered by the complainant and the costs of the complaint.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. None appeared to contest the complaint on behalf of OP no.1 despite service and was thus proceeded against exparte. OP no.2 appeared through its counsel Sh.G.S.Nagra, Advocate and filed the written version.

4.                In the written version filed on behalf of OP no.2, it has taken preliminary objection that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. On merits it is denied by the OP if the complainant has visited the op no.1 for the repair of the mobile hand set or three service men of Samsung company were working in the shop of op no.1. It is alleged that authorized service centre of op is separate. Op no.1 is only the retailer and is not authorized to repair any product of OP no.2.The complainant has never approached the service centre of OP no.2 for any kind of problem in the mobile hand set. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.                In order to prove the case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.C1, copy of bill, affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C2, affidavit of Kulvir Singh, Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, on behalf of OP no.2, its counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OP2/1 affidavit of Shriniwas Joshi, Senior Manager/authorized signatory of Samsung India Electronics Private Limited and closed the evidence.

7.                The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that complainant had several times visited the OP no.1 for repair of the said set but the OP is making lame excuses. He stated that due to the act and conduct of the OPs the complainant was mentally and physically harassed and complainant deserves to be compensated.

8.                On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP no.2 stated that the OP no.1 is not the authorized center of the OP no.2 and nor OP no.2 has been authorized to carry out repair work on behalf of the Company. The ld. counsel pleaded that no repair has been carried out by the authorized service center which is located at Khanna District Ludhiana. He submitted that complainant had never approached the OP no.2 or its service center with any kind of problem in his handset till date, thus the OP no.2 cannot be held liable for deficiency of service and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

9.                 We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and evidence placed on record by the parties. It has been admitted by the complainant that he visited OP no.1 for getting his handset repaired. It is also evident from the bill i.e Ex-C1 wherein it is mentioned that “One Year warranty only from Service Centre”. We are of the opinion that the complainant never approached the service centre of the Company which is situated at Khanna, District Ludhiana for redressal of his grievances. Even during the pendency of the case before this Forum the complainant did not approach the service centre. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the complainant never approached the authorized service centre of the OP no.2, thus, no deficiency of services has been proved to be committed by OP no.2.OP no.1 is only a retailer and he is not authorized by the company to carry out repair on behalf of OP no.2. Hence, we find that the complainant has failed to prove his case thus the same is dismissed being meritless. No order as to cost.

10.               The arguments on the complaint were heard on 06.04.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced                                                                                                                                                                                   Dated:07.04.2015                                                                                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                                                                                                                                                                   President

 

                              (Veena Chahal)                                                                                    Member