Punjab

Sangrur

CC/74/2017

Somnath - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Mobile Plaza - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sandip Kumar Goyal

16 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 74                                                                                           

                                                                  Instituted on:   22.02.2017                                                                                 

                                                                 Decided on:    16.06.2017

 

Somnath son of Satpal Resident of Ward No.3 Master Colony Moonak, Tehsil Moonak District Sangrur.       

                                                        …. Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1.       National Mobile Plaza Patran Road, near Barrier, Moonak, District Sangrur through its proprietor.

2.       M.D./General Manager of Samsung Mobiles, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector -43, DLF -PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana 122202.

3.       V.K.Enterprises, Garg Plaza Market, Jakhal Road Patran, District Patiala Samsung Care through its Proprietor.  

                                                ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Sandip Goyal Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.1&3  :      Exparte                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2          :      Shri  J.S.Sahni,  Advocate                         

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

     

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Somnath complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a mobile phone  i.e. Samsung Galaxy J2 from OP no.1 for Rs.7800/- vide invoice no. 393 dated 20.10.2016 under one year warranty. The mobile set was damaged due to fallen by the complainant for which he approached OP no. 3 who told damage of display was not fall under warranty  and he has to pay Rs.2900/- .  A job sheet dated 29.10.2016 was issued to the complainant. When the complainant approached the OP no.3 then they told that displays are not available in the stock and demanded account number of the complainant so that after deducting the amount of damaged touch i.e. Rs.2900/- will return the amount of the mobile. Thereafter number of times complainant approached the OP no.3 to return the abovesaid amount but OP no.3 in the month of December flatly refused to do anything. Further on 5.1.2017 the complainant again approached OP no.3 but OP no.3 misbehaved with complainant. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to pay Rs.4900/- as amount of mobile phone by deducting the amount of display with interest from the date of job sheet   ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs no. 1 and 3 did not appear and as such OPs no.1&3 were proceeded exparte.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.2, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability,  concealment of material facts, cause of action  and territorial jurisdiction have been taken up. On merits, it is submitted that complainant approached OP no.3 on 29.10.2016. It is correct that OP no.3 retained the handset as complainant agreed to pay for the repair charges and issued job sheet dated 29.10.2016. It is further  denied that OP no.3 suggested complainant to give his account number. It is also denied that complainant submitted his account number and all other alleged documents to OP no.3. It is pertinent to mention that  question of refund of price of handset does not arise when the product is not covered under warranty. The complainant never  approached OP no.3 to take back his duly repaired handset.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.2.

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.2 has tendered documents Ex.OP2/1 alongwith annexure R-1to R-2, to Ex.OP2/3 and closed evidence.

5.             It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased  one  Samsung Galaxy J2 from  the OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.7800/- which is evident from retail invoice Ex.C-3. It is an admitted case of the complainant that after purchase of  said mobile set within one week its display was damaged due to fall for which he approached Op no.3 who told  that damage of display was not cover under the warranty and he had to pay Rs.2900/- for display for which the complainant agreed. The complainant has further alleged that  when he approached the OP no.3 they told that display is not available in the stock  and he was told to give his account number so that after deducting the amount of damaged touch i.e. Rs.2900/- the remaining price amount could be deposited in account. On the other hand , OP no.2 has specifically denied the fact that  company after deducting the amount of damaged touch i.e. Rs.2900/-  will return amount of mobile rather it is the case of the OP no.3 is that  the question of refund of price of handset does not arise when the product is not covered under warranty. It has also been stated by OP no.3 that display screen of the handset required replacement  and estimate of repair was given  and same was approved by the complainant accordingly  handset was duly rectified  and is lying with the OP no.3 in perfect working condition but the complainant refused to take back his handset.

6.             It is not the case of the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in dispute rather it is complainant's own case that display of the mobile set was damaged due to fall which is not covered under the warranty. The complainant has not produced on record any documentary evidence which proves that the OPs told him to deposit the remaining balance price amount of the mobile set in question after deducting an amount of Rs.2900/- as display charges.      

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that it is not the case of manufacturing defect in the mobile set rather it was settled between the parties that the display will be replaced by the OPs on chargeable basis i.e. Rs.2900/-. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to return the mobile set of the complainant in proper working condition after charging of Rs.2900/- for new display as so stated by the complainant in his complaint.  We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                      

                Announced

                June 16, 2017

 

 

 

 ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)      (Sarita Garg)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                Member                      Member                      President

 

 

BBS/-