Haryana

Panchkula

CC/232/2015

JAI KARAN. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW LIGHT COMMUNICATIONS. - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK AGGARWAL.

12 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	232 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	21.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	12.05.2016

                                                                                            

Sh.Jai Karan, R/o House No.45, Police Colony, Sector-5, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.  

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. New Light Communications through its Proprietor/Partner, Booth No. 82, Sector 15, Panchkula.
2. Mobile Care (Samsung authorized service centre), SCO No.217, First Floor, Sector-14, District Panchkula, Haryana-134109 through its proprietor/partner/director.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. through its Director A 25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P. Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Adv., for the complainant.

Mr.Deepesh Mehta, authorized representative for

OP no. 1.

Mr.Puneet Tuli, Advocate for Ops no. 2 & 3.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that on 28.06.2015, he purchased a Samsung mobile handset Model SM-Z 130HZWDINS from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.4900/- with a warranty of one year (Annexure C-1). The Op No.1 told the complainant if the mobile handset had any defect or problem within warranty period, the same could be easily got replaced through any of the authorized dealers or service centers of Samsung. After the purchase of mobile, it started giving problem in audio quality, switched off during call, hanging during call, clarity in voice of incoming calls was not clear, signal of the set drops frequently even during the normal period, battery problem, once the cell phone was switched off it was very difficult to get the same switch on and software problem. The complainant approached the Op No.2 who after checking the mobile assured the complainant that matter would be taken up with the Op No.3 and it would be replaced and problem of the complainant would be solved. But nothing has been done in the matter. On 03.09.2015 the mobile handset was retained by the Op No.2 and also issued a job card (Annexure C-2). The mobile of the complainant was repaired but despite of repairs more problems were added. On 14.09.2015, the complainant again approached the OP No.2 for repair of mobile but the mobile was returned to him by stating that the engineers/technicians were not available and told him to come after few days. On 20.09.2015, the complainant again visited the Op No.2 for getting repair of mobile who after checking the same told the complainant that the parts were not available which were required for carrying out repairs and told him to come after few days. On 01.10.2015, the complainant approached the Op No.2 who refused to entertain the complainant. The complainant also issued legal notice dated 03.10.2015 (Annexure C-4) to the Ops but to no avail. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. The OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the complainant purchased a mobile handset from the Op No.1. It is submitted that at the time of purchase, the complainant was informed that if any problem occurred in the mobile, he should have to visit Op No.2 i.e. authorized service center. It is submitted that the Op No.1 has performed its duties and services in a very good & transparent manner. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The OPs No. 2 & 3 appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant himself admitted that there was a defect in the software which normally occurred on account of loading of external programs and the same could not be said to be a manufacturing defect. It is submitted that the Op No.2 has never refused to repair the mobile set. It is submitted that the mobile handset was within warranty and the Ops were duty bound to maintain the same as per warranty terms and conditions. It is submitted that the mobile was brought for repair, new repair as might be required after the inspection was carried out. It is submitted that every time mobile set was repaired and a fresh job card was issued. It is denied that the mobile handset had incoming audio quality. It is denied that the mobile handset would switch of during call or that there was a problem of hanging. It is submitted that the clarity was also dependent on the network being provided by the service provider on which the mobile being used. It is submitted that if the signal of the handset has dropped, the problem was not on account of the mobile handset it was on account of network. It is submitted that there was no defect in the mobile handset. It is denied that the mobile set was required to be replaced. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No. 2 & 3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavits Annexure C-A & C-B alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the authorized representative for OP No.1 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith document Annexure R1/1 and closed the evidence. Counsel for the Ops no. 2 & 3 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R2/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard counsel for the complainant, authorized representative for the OP no. 1 and learned counsel for the Ops No. 2 & 3 and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. The sale of a Samsung mobile handset, Model SM-Z 130HZWDINS vide bill/cash memo no. 5521 dated 28.06.2015 (Annexure C-1) from the Op No. 1 for a sum of Rs.4900/- is admitted.
7. The main grouse of the complainant is that the mobile hand set started giving problem in hanging during call, no clarity in voice of incoming calls & software problems and the same was deposited with Op No.2 vide job sheet dated 03.09.2015 (Annexure C-2) with remarks “hang and customer request s w up date” but after repair, more problems were added. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Op No.2 on 14.09.2015, 29.09.2015 and 01.10.2015 for getting the mobile handset repaired which is evident through Annexure C-3 but to no avail.
8. In the present complaint, the complainant has rightly prayed for refund of the amount paid towards the cost of hand set as he was deprived of its usage inspite of spending such a handsome amount for the purchase of the mobile handset.
9. Evidently the complainant had spent the money for the purchase of brand new mobile handset to facilitate himself but not for moving to the service center and then this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Ops. Even the defects in the mobile handset within warranty period, makes pointer towards the poor quality of the product. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
10. In the light of above observations, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed against the Ops and the same is allowed. The Ops jointly and severely directed as under:-
    1. To refund of Rs.4900/- being the cost of the mobile hand set in question to the complainant alongwith @ 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
    2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
    3. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation.
11. This order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

12.05.2016       S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                           MEMBER        MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                          

                                                     DHARAM PAL 

                                                     PRESIDENT