Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1239/2015

Davit Nagpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Time - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Jarnail Singh

12 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                          

                                                                  Complaint no. 1239                                                                                               

                                                                 Instituted on:  09.10.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    12.07.2016

 

Davit Nagpal son of Shri Som Nath resident of House No.512, Sunami Gate, Near Ram Mandir, Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1. National Time, Court Road, Sangrur through its Manager.
2. Gaurav Communication authorized service centre Samsung Mobiles, Street No.2, Near Railway Chowk, Gaushala Road, Sangrur through its authorized signatory.
3. Samsung Customer Satisfaction, 2nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon Haryana-122002 through its Managing Director.

                                          ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT    :       Shri Jarnail Singh,  Advocate                          

 

FOR  OPP. PARTY No.1          :         Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2                 :         Exparte.

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3                 :         Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate.

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Davit Nagpal complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a mobile Samsung Galaxy G360H/DS vide invoice number 335 dated 19/04/2015  for an amount of Rs.8550/-  from OP No.1 under  guarantee one  year. After some days, the said mobile set started giving problems i.e. auto restart and set hang for which the complainant approached the OP No.1 who advised him to approach OP No.2. On his advice, the complainant approached the OP No.2 on 25.07.2015 who issued job card to him. The complainant   collected the mobile set which was repaired by OP no.2. The complainant again approached the OP No.2  for repair of the mobile set but the OP no.2 told him that it cannot be repaired as there is a manufacturing defect. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to change the mobile set with new one or to refund  Rs.8550/-  as price amount of mobile set along with interest,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to all the OPs but despite service OP no.2 did not appear and as such OP no.2 was proceeded exparte.

3.             OP no.1 appeared through Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate on 03.12.2016 but despite affording so many opportunities to file the written statement, OP No.1 did not file  the same and ultimately on 27.01.2016,  the OP No.1 was debarred from filing the written statement.

4.             In reply filed by OP No.3, preliminary objections on the grounds of concealment of true facts, territorial jurisdiction,  abuse of process of law and misuse of process of law have been taken up. On merits, purchase of mobile set in question is admitted. It is denied that the OPs gave guarantee of one year rather there is warranty one year subject to the terms and conditions. It is denied that after some days the mobile set was giving problem of auto restart and hanging.  It is correct that the complainant approached the OP No.2 on 25.07.2015 who issued job sheet and defects were rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant as it was only a software problem. It is denied that the OP no.2 told the complainant that  it cannot be repaired  and there is any manufacturing defect in the same. There is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.  

5.             In his exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP No.3 has tendered documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/3 and closed evidence.

6.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone of Samsung Galaxy G360H/DS  from OP No.1  vide invoice number 335 dated 19.04.2015 for an amount of Rs.8550/- which is Ex.C-1 on record. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that from the very beginning of the purchase of the mobile set in question, it started giving problems of hanging and auto restart for which he approached the OP no.1 who advised him to approach the OP No.2 and on advice of the OP No.1  he approached the OP no.2 who  issued job card after taking the mobile set in question for repair but the defects could not be rectified and ultimately OP No.2 told that the mobile set has manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified. To prove his version, the complainant has also produced report of an expert namely Kamalpreet  Singh  proprietor of Kamal  Communication Prem Basti, Sangrur  along with  copy of  certificate   which are Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 wherein it has been stated  that  after thorough checking  and using the mobile set  one day and as per my knowledge, he found that the mobile set is not in working condition due to some manufacturing defect in the mobile set  and the said problem is not curable one. Against the version of the complainant, the OP No.1  has stated that  the mobile set in question was purchased from OP No.1 but no guarantee was given rather warranty of one year was given subject to the terms and conditions. The OP No.3 has also admitted that the complainant approached the OP no.2 on 25.07.2015  and job sheet was issued to him and the mobile set in question after rectifying the defects was  handed over to the complainant to his entire satisfaction. Surprisingly enough no satisfactory voucher/  job card having signed by the complainant to the effect of satisfaction  has been produced by the OP No.3 on record. Rather the complainant has produced copy of job card Ex.C-2 on record  and after perusal of which we find that below the column " I have received the equipment in satisfactory working condition" there is no signature of the customer.  Moreover, during the proceedings of the case, the OP No.3 has moved an application for direction to the  complainant to submit his handset  for inspection by an expert which was allowed and   the complainant was ordered to handover the mobile set in dispute to the learned counsel for the OP No.3. Thereafter the set was handed over to the learned counsel for the OP No.3 in the Forum on 18.04.2015. Surprisingly, till today i.e. final disposal of the case, the hand set in question was not deposited back in the Forum after inspection which also shows negligence of the part of the OP no.3.   The OP no.2 not come forward to contest the case of the complainant rather it chosen to remain exparte.   OP No.1 had appeared in the case through Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate but he also after taking so many opportunities did not file  any written reply  to contest the case of the  complainant. As such the evidence produced by the complainant against them has gone unrebutted.  

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we find  that the OPs are deficient in service and as such we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs  who are jointly and severally liable to give a new mobile in place of the defect mobile set which is already in the custody of the OP No.3 or in the alternative to refund an amount of Rs.8550/- which is price amount of the mobile set in dispute  to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of purchase till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- being the consolidated amount of  compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and 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

                July 12, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)          (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member          Member                                President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-