Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/40/2015

Rajesh Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

Narinder Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sukhjinder Singh Marwa

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.40 of 2015

                                                     Date of institution :15.04.2015                                                             Date of decision    : 29.02.2016

Rajesh Sood son of Sh. Amrit Lal, resident of village Sangatpur Sodhian, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Narinder Enterprises, Cinema Road, Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Signatory.
2. Space Info Communication, opposite Nirankari Bhavan, Sugar Mill Road, Morinda, District Ropar through its Signatory.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-I, Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. through its M.D./Chairman.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                           

Quorum

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

Present :  Sh.S.S.Marwa, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                                            OP No.1 exparte.                                                                                                    Sh. G.S.Nagra, Adv.Cl. for OPs No.2 & 3.        

ORDER

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member.

                      Complainant Rajesh Sood son of Sh. Amrit Lal, resident of village Sangatpur Sodhian, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant along with his son went to the shop of OP No.1 and purchased a Samsung Mobile Model 7582 amount to Rs.9500/- vide bill dated 22.04.2014 issued in the name of his son. After purchasing the mobile hand set, a fault was occurred in the same as when complainant attached headphone with the mobile, the mobile shows “unattached headphone to the mobile phone”. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that the pin of the headphone was not run in the said mobile phone. The complainant visited the shop of OP No.1, who advised him to visit at Service Center of Samsung i.e. OP No.2. Thereafter, the complainant informed about the said defect in the mobile phone to the concerned employee of the said service centre i.e. OP No.2 but he refused to repair the mobile in question. Thereafter, the complainant visited the shop of OP No.1 and requested him to replace the said mobile with new one but it totally refused to do so and also refused to repair the said mobile phone. The complainant also issued a legal notice dated 20.03.2015 through his counsel but in vain. The act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.9500/- i.e price of the mobile phone or to replace the same with new one and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment and mental pain suffered by the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.  
3.           Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs butOP No.1 choose not to appear to contest this complaint. Therefore, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte.
4.           The complaint is contested by OPs No. 2 and 3. In reply to the complaint they stated that complainant has approached OP No.2 with problem in headphone jack and after checking the handset in the presence of complainant it was noticed that some components were found to be burnt near headphone jack, probably due to attaching the handset with amplifier. This fact was duly communicated to complainant that due to burning of parts/mishandling, the handset in question was not covered under warranty and repair will be done on chargeable basis. The estimate of repair was given to the complainant but the same was not approved by the complainant and he refused to get his handset repaired on chargeable basis.  It is further stated that OP No.2 is still ready to repair the mobile in question but only on chargeable basis as the mobile is out of warranty due to mishandling of the handset by attaching the same with amplifier leading to burning of some internal components of the handset near the headphone jack of the mobile. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant is not entitled for any compensation or litigation expenses. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.                 In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence attested copy of bill NO. 5532 dated 22.04.2014 as Ex. C-1, attested copy of legal notice Ex. C-2, postal receipts Ex. C-3, affidavit of complainant as Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal  OPs No. 2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Chitaranjan Sahoo Ex. OP2/1, true copy of warrantee card Ex. OP2/2 and closed the evidence.
6.                 The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that he purchased a mobile hand set on 22.04.2014 but fault occurred in the same after few days when he tried to attach the headphone with the mobile hand set. He visited the shop of OP No.1, who advised him to visit OP No.2, the service centre of Samsung, but it refused to repair/replace the mobile though it was within warrantee period of one year. Legal notice was also served upon OPs but no action was taken by them. The Ld. counsel pleaded for giving direction to the OPs to refund the price of mobile hand set or to replace the same with new one along with compensation for harassment and mental pain.
7.                 The Ld.counsel for OPs No. 2 and 3 argued that OP No.2 checked the handset in the presence of the complainant and noticed that some components found to be burnt near headphone jack, which was due to mishandling of the set by the complainant. There was no manufacturing defect in the mobile set. Such defects arising due to burning/mishandling are not covered under warrantee and repair could be done on chargeable basis. There was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.
8.                 After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties, written arguments submitted by the complainant and the oral arguments, we find that there is no proof of any manufacturing defect in the mobile hand set or its headphone. On the other hand there is merit in the submissions made by Ld. counsel for the OPs that defect occurred due to mishandling of the mobile handset by attaching the same with amplifier leading to burning of some internal components of the handset near the headphone jack of the mobile hand set in question. Hence we dismiss the complaint. No order as to costs. Parties to bear their own costs.
9.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 15.02.2016 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:29.02.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)                President

 

(Veena Chahal)              Member

 

      (A.B.Aggarwal)              Member