Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/78/2016

Amrit Singh another - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paradise Communication & other - Opp.Party(s)

Sh H S Rai

04 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.78 of 2016

                                                     Date of institution : 12.08.2016                                   

                                                     Date of decision    : 04.08.2017

1. Amrit Singh aged about 26 years
2. Arjun Singh aged about 23 years both sons of Baljinder Singh, both residents of village Kharori, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainants

Versus

1. Paradise communication, Post office Road, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its proprietor/authorized person.
2. Techno Solutions, Samsung Authorized service center, opposite goal market, near Krishna Mandir, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-1, Sector 81, Phase 2, Noida, District Gautam Budha Nagar, Uttar Pardesh.

 …..Opposite Parties

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

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh.H.S.Rai, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                         

                 Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 exparte.

                      Sh. G.S.Nagra, Adv.Cl. for OP No.3.

ORDER

 

By Inder Jit, Member

                      Complainants, Amrit Singh and Arjun Singh, both residents of village Kharori, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, have filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant No.1 purchased a mobile hand set i.e. Samsung J5(4G) gold in the name of complainant No.2, vide retail invoice No.703 dated 13.01.2016 for Rs.12,000/- from OP No.1. After the purchase of the said mobile hand set, the same was not functioning properly, hanged up after 3/4 days and became in disorder condition. Thereafter in the second week of April 2016, the mobile hand set automatically switched off completely due to some technical defect in the same. The complainants approached OP No.1 for its repair, who sent the complainants to OP No.2. On 15.04.2016, OP No.2 charged Rs.4,000/- by saying that the display of mobile hand set is to be changed as the same is not in working condition. OP No.2 handed over the mobile hand set to the complainant after repair and assured that the mobile will start functioning smoothly.  But the same was not functioning properly and in the first week of June 2016, the same was totally switched off again. The complainants again approached OP No.2 on 09.06.2016 for repair of the said mobile hand set. OP No.2 retained the mobile hand set with it and asked the complainant to come on 16.06.2016. Thereafter the complainant many times visited the office of OP No.2 but it did not repair the mobile hand set. Thereafter on 27.06.2016, OP No.2 again demanded Rs.4,000/- from the complainant for affixing the new display. The complainants refused to give any amount. Therefore, OP No.2 returned the mobile hand set to the complainant without repairing the same. The complainants so many times requested the OPs to replace the mobile hand set with new one or to refund the amount as they sold a defective mobile to the complainant. But they did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainants. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to supply a new mobile hand set, Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment, Rs.3300/- as counsel fee and Rs.1000/- as misc. expenses.
3.  Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs but OPs No.1 and 2 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, they were proceeded against exparte.
4. The complaint is contested by OP No.3, who filed its reply. In reply to the complaint OP No.3 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as he has concealed the material and true facts from this Forum; the present complaint is gross abuse of the process of law and is totally false, frivolous and baseless and the complaint has been filed with malafide intention to extract money from the OPs. As regards to the facts of the complaint, OP No.3 stated that the mobile hand set was submitted with OP No.2 on 15.04.2016 and the reported problem was duly rectified to the satisfaction of the complainants without any charges as the same was under warranty. Thereafter the complainants have not reported any problem in the mobile. It is further stated that the obligation of the OPs under warranty is to set right the mobile hand set by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. The performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product apart from compatibility of downloaded mobile applications and game. It is further stated that the mobile hand set in question has been mishandled leading to 'Auto Switch Off' problem. The handset was having various non-compatible mobile application and games leading to problem. However, the reported problem was duly rectified to the satisfaction of complainants.  The complainant has neither alleged any specific irrepairable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove their case the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant No.2 Ex. C-1, true copy of bill dated 13.01.2016 Ex. C-2 and closed the evidence.  In rebuttal OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose Ex. OP3/1  and closed the evidence.
6. The ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the mobile handset was defective one, but the OPs neither repaired it properly nor replaced it. He also argued that the handset was first repaired on 15.04.2016 on payment of Rs.4,000/- though it was under warranty.
7. On the other hand, the Ld. counsels for OP No.3 argued that on 15.04.2016, the mobile hand set was repaired free of cost with regard to "Auto Switch Off" only and that too, to the satisfaction of the complainant.
8. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, OP No.3 and going through the pleadings and evidence produced by them and oral submissions, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. However, neither the complainant nor the OPs have put on record any evidence relating to job sheet or the receipt for payment of Rs.4,000/- by the complainant. Technical report of OP No.2, as ordered by this Forum, has also been filed on 26.05.2017, which shows that certain accessories/spares are required to be put in the mobile and the cost for it is Rs.7,805/-(Approximately). The mobile hand set had gone completely out of order in the month of June 2016 i.e. during the currency of warranty period. Hence, we dispose off this complaint with direction to OP No.2 & OP No.3 to rectify the mobile handset free of cost within a period of 45 days positively as per the terms of warranty as laid down in para No.4 of the written statement of OP No.3. No order as to costs.
9.                   The arguments on the complaint were heard on 21.07.2017 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:04.08.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)

President

 

(Inder Jit)            

Member