Punjab

Sangrur

CC/210/2016

Manjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop./Partner - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Vikram Manchanda

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 210                                                                                        

                                                                  Instituted on:   29.01.2016                            

                                                                  Decided on:    26.09.2016

 

Manjeet Kaur wife of Sh. Parampreet Singh resident of #447, Tailors Street, Magazine Mohalla, Sangrur.     

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.  M/s S.R. Sales Opposite  Jyoti Sarup Gurudwara, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ partner.

2.   M/s Gaurav Communication, Near PWD rest House, Railway Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Partner.

3.   Samsung India Electronic Limited, Regd. Address, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi, through its chairman/ Managing Director.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Vikram Manchanda Adv.                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1&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.             Manjeet Kaur, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she purchased a Samsung mobile bearing Model E-5 from OP No.1 for Rs.18900/- vide bill no. RI-1139 dated 31.01.2015 under one year warranty.   In the month of November 2015,  the mobile set in question started creating problems of  display ( LED) and battery  and it was also  hanged and shutdown automatically network problem for which the complainant approached the OP No.1 who advised to approach the OP No.2. Then the complainant approached OP No.2  who kept the set with it and returned the same with assurance that it was in OK condition. In the month of December  2015, the said phone again started giving same problem . This time  the complainant requested the OP no.2  to remove the defect permanently  but employee told to the complainant that  due to manufacturing defect the problems could not be removed.  Thereafter again on 16.01.2016 the complainant approached the OP No.2 for removing the defects in the mobile set but same was not removed. Thereafter the complainant requested the OPs to replace the defective mobile set with new one but they did not do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to replace the defective mobile set with new one or in the alternative to refund the amount of the mobile set,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- 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 2 did not appear and as such OPs no.1 and 2 were proceeded exparte on 30.03.2016. The OP No.3 had appeared through Shri J.S.Sahni Advocate  and filed reply.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.3, preliminary objections on the grounds of concealment of true facts, territorial jurisdiction, abuse of process of law, cause of action and misuse of process of law have been taken up. On merits, purchase of mobile set in question under one year warranty subject to warranty terms and conditions is admitted.  It is denied that in the month of November 2015 the mobile set started giving  problems in its display  and battery problem. It is denied that mobile hanged  and shutdown automatically after some time.  It is also denied that the complainant approached OP no.2 with the alleged problem in her handset in the month of November 2015. It is submitted that  prior to 16.01.2016 complainant has never submitted her handset with OP No.2 with any kind of problem.  It is denied that  employee of OP no.2 told the complainant that due to manufacturing defect s the alleged problems are redevelop/ revive in the said mobile phone.  OP no.2 duly retained  the handset and reported problem was duly rectified  to the satisfaction of the complainant  and handset was delivered back to the complainant in Ok condition.  Thus, there no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

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.3 has tendered documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/3 and closed evidence.   

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.3, we find that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone of Samsung company from OP No.1 on 31.01.2015 for an amount of Rs.18900/- under warranty of one year which is evident from  bill number RI-1139 dated 31.01.2015 which is Ex.C-3 on record. The complainant has  stated that  in the month of November 2015,  the mobile set in question started creating problems of  display ( LED) and battery  and it was also  hanged and shutdown automatically network problem for which the complainant approached the OP No.1 who advised to approach the OP No.2. Then the complainant approached OP No.2  who kept the set with it and returned the same with assurance that it was in OK condition. In the month of December  2015, the said phone again started giving same problem . This time  the complainant requested the OP no.2  to remove the defect permanently  but employee of OP no.2 told to the complainant that  due to manufacturing defect the problems could not be removed.  Thereafter again on 16.01.2016 the complainant approached the OP No.2 for removing the defects in the mobile set but same was not removed.

6.             To prove his version, the complainant has produced on record copy of retail invoice Ex.C-3,  job sheet dated 30.05.2016 Ex.C-2, job sheet dated 28.12.2015 Ex.C-4 and another job sheet dated 16.01.2016 Ex.C-5. The complainant has also produced report dated 25.01.2016 of an expert namely Chander Kant Ex.C-8 along with his affidavit Ex.C-7  wherein  he has opined that  he inspected the mobile set in dispute of the complainant  and found that the said mobile set having defects of display hanging, voice and battery backup problem  and in my opinion  the said defects are manufacturing.

7.             Against the report of expert of the complainant, the OPs has  also produced report of an expert namely Kulwant Singh, Service Engineer working with M/s Guarav Communication Gaushala Road, Sangrur, OP no.2  wherein he  has stated that  there is  no manufacturing defect or any other defect in the mobile set as alleged by the complainant  and set is in OK condition. Learned counsel for the complainant has  argued that Kulwant Singh is working with M/s Gaurav Communication and being a paid employee  he would support  the contention of M/s Gaurav Communication. We find merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant because Mr. Kulwant Singh is not an independent person. In support of his contention learned counsel for the complainant has produced copy of judgment of the  Hon'ble State Consumer Commission Punjab, titled as  Shaminder Pal Singh Vs. Samsung India & another, First Appeal No.311 of 2012,  decided on 17.01.2013. The OPs no. 1&2 did not appear to contest the case of the complainant rather they remain exparte. As such evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted.

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable  to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same model or in the alternative to refund an                                                                                                                                                      amount Rs.18900/- which is price amount of the mobile set in dispute  to the complainant subject to return of the defective mobile set in question along with all accessories of it . We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.2000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.

9.             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

                September 26, 2016

 

 

 

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

 Member           Member                          President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-