Punjab

Sangrur

CC/292/2016

Davinder Sharda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor/Authorized dealer - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ashwani Chaudhary

14 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 292                                                                                         

                                                                  Instituted on:   15.02.2016                                                                                                                                                                                   Decided on:    14.09.2016

 

Davinder Sharda son of Jai Raghu Nandan resident of village Ghabdan Tehsil & District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.   Jaidka Communications Vijay Chowk Opp. City Police Station Sangrur through its proprietor/ authorized dealer.

2.  Samsung Care Center Sangrur Near Railway Chowk Sangrur authorized dealer, proprietor.

3.   Samsung Electronics Pvt. Limited, B-1 Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida, District Gautam Budha Nagar Uttar Pardesh.  

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     In person.                            

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES 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.             Davinder Sharda, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Samsung mobile bearing Model Samsung Galaxy JI ACE from OP No.1 for Rs.6200/- vide retail invoice no. 4722 dated 26.01.2016 under one year warranty.   From the very purchase the mobile set in question started giving problem of hanging  and all functions of its stood idle for which the complainant approached the OP No.2 on 11.02.2016 and 15.02.2016 who kept the same but failed to repair the mobile set in question.  However at all times no job card was ever issued to the complainant. The complainant number of  times approached the OPs and requested them to replace  the same with new one as the same is well within warranty  as the company has failed to remove the manufacturing defect but they flatly refused to replace the cell phone. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund Rs.6100/-  as price of the cell phone along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

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 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 04.04.2016. 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 from OP no.1 is admitted.  It is denied that the complainant approached OP no.2 for the removal of alleged defects. The complainant has never  visited OP no.2  till date with any kind of problem in his handset. It is also denied that the complainant  has given the phone to OP No.2 on 11.02.2016  and 15.02.2016. When the complainant has never submitted  his handset with OP no.2 then the question of issuing of any job sheet does not arise. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.              

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

5.             It is an admitted fact on record that the mobile set  in question was purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1  on 26.01.2016 for an amount of Rs.6200/- under warranty of one year which is evident from  retail invoice number 4722 dated 26.01.2015 which is Ex.C-4 on record. The complainant has  stated that from the very purchase, said mobile phone started giving problems of  hanging and automatic locked and not responding for which he approached the OP no.2 on 11.02.2016  and 15.02.2016 but the OP No.2 failed to remove the defects of the mobile set. It has been further alleged by the complainant that at all times no job sheet was issued.  Against the version of the complainant the OP no.3 specifically stated in the reply that the complainant had not given the mobile set to the OP No.2 on 11.02.2016 and 15.02.2016  and when the complainant  has never submitted his handset with OP no.2 then question  of issuing of any job sheet does not arise.  Even if, it is assumed that the OP no.2 did not issue any job sheet to the complainant then the complainant has the option to make a complaint against the OP No.2 before  the higher authorities but surprisingly the complainant did not do anything in this regard which shows malafide intention on the  part of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has not produced on record any document which shows that the complainant visited the OP No.2 with complaint of his defective mobile set.

6.             The complainant has produced on record report of an expert namely Gagan Kumar  proprietor Gagan mobile  care near battery hospital Bus stand to college road Malerkotla, District Sangrur. Surprisingly enough, the complainant is resident of village Ghabdan Tehsil and District Sangrur  but the report of expert was got from Malerkotla which is so far away from Sangrur. It is common knowledge that there are so many experts in Sangrur and nearby Sangrur. Here again  it seems that there is somewhat malafide intention on the part of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any document regarding qualification/ experience of the expert. The expert in his report has not opined in what manner the defect in the mobile set in question is manufacturing which is not repairable.

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  wherein he  has stated that after inspection of the mobile set   he found that there was physical damage to the touch of the handset of the complainant , so the handset was/is not covered under the warranty and repair was only on chargeable basis. 8.                For the reasons recorded above, complaint of the complainant is dismissed however with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                                              Announced

        September 14, 2016

 

 

 

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