District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran.

C.C. No. No                   : 55 of 2014

Date of Institution  : 11.08.2014

Date of Decision    : 12.05.2015

Sukhwinder Singh son of Gurbaksh Singh, resident of village Toot, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran

                                                                    …Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab Electronic through its Proprietor, Railway Road Patti, District Tarn Taran
2. Samsung Care, through its Manager opposite Janta Palace Amritsar Road Tarn Taran.
3. Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Head Office Sector 43, Gurgon

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12  & 13 Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

For the Complainant                          : Sh.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate

For Opposite Parties No.1.              : Sh. Harpreet Singh, Advocate

For Opposite Party No.2, 3.       : Sh.G.S. Pannu, Advocate       

Quorum:               Sh. S.K. Goel, President.

Sh. R.D. Sharma, Member.

Smt.Jaswinder Kaur, Member

Order dictated by Sh. S.K.Goel, President

1. Sh. Sukhwinder Singh son of Gurbaksh Singh, complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short ‘the Act’) against Punjab Electronic through its Proprietor, Railway Road Patti, District Tarn Taran (for short ‘the opposite party No. 1’). Samsung Care, through its Manager opposite Janta Palace Amritsar Road Tarn Taran (for short ‘the opposite party No. 2’) and  Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Head Office Sector 43, Gurgon  (for short ‘the opposite party No. 3’)
2. Facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant purchased samsung mobile Model-1200 bearing IMEI No. 359838051342616  from the opposite party No. 1 who is authorized dealer for his personal use vide bill No. 1746 dated 3.3.2014 for an amount of Rs. 1,200/-. After about 4 months of the use of the said mobile, the same started giving problems of network signal and hearing voice. Being this mobile was in its warranty period therefore the complainant brought this defect in to the notice of opposite party NO. 1. However the opposite party No. 1 took this matter lightly and told that it was a minor defect and will be removed but the complainant continued to visit the opposite party No. 1 again and time but in vain. Again  on 15.7.2014, the complainant went to the opposite party No. 1 and requested him to remove the said defect and it was given to the opposite party No. 1 for its repair. But on the same day the opposite party No. 1 informed the complainant that the defect of the said mobile was not repairable and referred to the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that the matter would be solved at the earliest. Thereafter the complainant approached both the parties many times but the opposite party failed to remove the said defect or to repair the same. Thus the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service. Moreover the said act of negligence and deficiency in service resulted in great mental pain and inconvenience to the complainant. Hence the present complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties to provide him Brand New Samsung Mobile as well as Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment and further to award Rs. 5,000/- as litigation charges.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 filed reply taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability and limitation. On merits, it is pleaded that the mobile in question was sold by answering opposite party. However it is the job of opposite party No. 2 alongwith manufacturer of the product to provide after sale service to their consumers.  Moreover when the complainant approached the answering opposite party then the complaint was referred to the opposite party No. 2. It is further averred that the complainant is indulging in unnecessary litigation to obtain unfair advantage from the opposite party and finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. A separate written version has been filed by the opposite party No. 2 who took the preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability, non joinder of necessary parties, estoppel and concealment of material facts. On Merits, they denied that on 15.7.2014 the complaint was referred to the answering opposite party No. 2 by opposite party No. 1. Infact the complainant approached to the opposite party No. 2 for first time on 5.7.2014 with the complaint that the alleged mobile was having sound problem. The same was delivered back to the complainant on 10.7.2014 upon the satisfaction of the complainant that the product was functioning well. Moreover the grievance of the complainant was also conveyed to the concerned official of the company/ manufacturer of the product. Even upon recommendation of the Samsang company/ manufacturer answering opposite party No. 2 offered Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. But instead of accepting the said offer the complainant opted to retain said product with him after satisfying himself. Rather thereafter the complainant did not approach to the answering opposite party with the product. Thus it was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service and cause of action against the opposite party No. 2 and finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Separate written version has also been filed by the opposite party No. 3. They have taken preliminary objections on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, cause of action and misuse of process of law. On merits, it was pleaded that the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 for the first time on 5.7.2014 with the problem of sound. Opposite party No. 2 duly rectified the problem of hand set and delivered back the same to the complainant in OK condition to his satisfaction on 10.7.2014 and thereafter the complainant never approached the opposite party No. 2 with any problem in his hand set. They have denied the allegation regarding the failure of removal of the defect in the Mobile set in question. They have denied any deficiency in service on their part. They have also denied other contents of the complaint and finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The complainant tendered in to evidence his affidavit Ex. C.1 alongwith document Ex. C.2 and closed the evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered in to evidence affidavit of Tarsem Singh Ex. OP1/1 and closed the evidence.
8. The opposite party No. 3 also tendered in to evidence affidavit of Shriniwas Joshi Senior Manager Ex. OP3/1 and closed the evidence.
9. The evidence of the opposite party No. 2 is closed by order vide order dated 16.4.2015.
10. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
11. The first contention raised by the counsel for the opposite party No. 3 is that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. It is further contended that the opposite party No. 3 has neither sold the mobile set in question nor they have any branch office at Tarn Taran. However this contention of the Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 is untenable. Perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from the opposite party No. 1 at Patti, District Tarn Taran and the said mobile is of made Samsung Mobile Made 1200. It is also not disputed that the opposite party No. 2 i.e. service centre who is having its office at Tarn Taran.  It is also not disputed that the opposite party No. 3 is the manufacturer of the said mobile set. Thus it is clearly shows that the opposite party No. 3 is carrying on its business through the opposite party No. 2 to provide service to its consumers. Hence, this point is answered against the opposite party No. 3.
12. Facing this situation, the Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 for repair of said Mobile set on 5.7.2014 and the same was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and it was delivered back on 10.7.2014 and thereafter the complainant had not approached to the opposite party. On the other hand, the complainant has alleged that despite approaching the opposite party No. 2 many times, the said service centre-opposite party No. 2 failed to repair his mobile set. Thus there is no dispute that the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 for repairing his mobile set. Once, the mobile set is handed over to the opposite party No. 2 then it becomes their duty to make entry for receiving the same mentioning the date in some register.  After repairing the mobile and if it is OK then entry to that extent is required to be made in the register kept for this purpose and further mentioning the date of delivering the same to the complainant. However there is no such record has been placed by the opposite party to show that the mobile set was in OK condition and it was delivered back to the complainant. This fact also finds support from Para No. 4 of the written version of the opposite party No. 2 wherein it is specifically mentioned that the opposite party on the recommendation of the Samsung Company/ manufacturer offered Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant on behalf of Samsung company. Even no technical report has been placed on record by the opposite party to show that the mobile set was fit for repair. Non production of any technical report shows that the mobile was not fit for repair. Hence, it is held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
13. As result of above discussion there is merit in the present complaint and the same is accepted. The opposite parties are directed to replace the said mobile with new Samsung Mobile of the same model and in case the same model is not available then to return its price. As the complainant suffered mental and physical harassment, therefore the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 2,100/- as compensation. The complainant is also entitled to litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 1,100/-.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. After completion file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum                               

Dated:12.05.2015                                            President

   Member             Member