DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Complaint No. CC/14/331 of 04/12/2014

Decided on 03/06/2015

Rahul Kamboj son of Sh. Jagdish Kamboj, resident of House no.554, Hira Bagh, Rajpura road, Patiala.

….Complainant.

Versus

1. Roshan Lal Puran Chand, authorized Mobile Service Centre, Bharpur Garden, Ayurvedic College Road, Near Leo Gas Patiala through its Proprietor/ Partner.

2. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. B-1, Sector 81, Phase-II, Noida District Gautam Buddh Nagar (Uttarpardesh).

….Opposite parties.

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM

Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member

Present:

For Complainant : Sh. Rahul Kamboj complainant in person.

For Opposite party no.1 : Ex-parte

For Opposite party no. 2 : Sh. J. S. Sandhu Advocate

ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:

1. The complainant purchased one Samsung mobile phone Model no.GT-19060, IMEI no.2742/06/48599210 from M/s Seema Electronics vide Invoice no.6392 for an amount of Rs.15000/- on 06/08/2014. It is averred that since the date of the said purchase, the mobile phone was giving the problem like contact alphabet missing, hanging set off then restart, touch, charging problem etc. and the complainant approached OP no.1 on 22/11/2014 & deposited the mobile phone with Op no.1. On 25/11/2014, Op no.1 informed the complainant telephonically to collect the mobile phone as the problem in the mobile phone had been rectified. The complainant collected the mobile phone from OP no.1 but the very next day the same problem again cropped up and the complainant lodged two complaints telephonically with OP no.1.

2. On 26/11/2014, the complainant had a talk with an employee named Vibhu Gupta of OP no.1 who told the complainant to bring the mobile phone to the service centre. Accordingly, the complainant approached Op no.1, who rectified the defect in the mobile phone. Again on 27/11/2014 the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.1 with the same problem of 'Alphabet missing' along with a new problem of 'Network missing'. On 01/12/2014, the complainant received a message from OP no.1 to collect the mobile phone and the complainant visited OP no.1 and found that the defect in the mobile phone had not been removed and OP no.1 told the complainant to come on the next day. On 2/12/2014, the complainant again visited OP no.1 and collected the mobile phone but the problem in the mobile phone still persisted. Again on 03/12/2014 the complainant approached the Customer Care through phone no.1800-3000 8282 and an employee named Priya told the complainant that the motherboard of the mobile phone had been changed but the OP never disclosed the complainant regarding the changing of the motherboard.

3. It is further averred that the complainant underwent a lot of harassment and humiliation at the hands of OPs. OPs were bound to rectify the defect in the mobile phone as the same occurred during warranty period which they failed to rectify and it amounted to deficiency of service on their part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act).

4. On notice, OP no.1 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex-parte. Whereas Op no.2 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. In its written statement, it is submitted that the complainant approached OP no.2 on 22/11/2014 with the problem of Hanging, restart and battery backup issue. OP no.1 checked the mobile handset in the presence of the complainant and found that some non-compatible mobile applications were lying installed in the handset which led to corruption of software and on internal inspection PBA board was found to be damaged due to some physical impact and the same was replaced & updated software was reloaded and the problem was duly rectified. Again on 27/11/2014, the complainant approached OP no.1 with the alleged problems which were duly rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. Moreover the complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific parts of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authentic report of expert and qualified person of the Central approved laboratory. As such no deficiency of service can be attributed on the part of OP. After denying all other allegations going against OP, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP no.2 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA the sworn affidavit of Sh. Shrinivas Joshi, Senior Manager, Samsung and closed the evidence.

6. Parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person and counsel for the op and gone through the evidence placed on record.

7. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the Invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from Seema Electronics on 06/08/2014 for an amount of Rs.15,000/-. After some time, some problem cropped up in the mobile phone i.e. Alphabet missing, Hanging etc. and the complainant approached OP no.1 vide job sheet Ex.C-3 dt.22/11/2014. On 25/11/2014 the complainant received a telephonic message from OP no.1 that the defect in the said mobile phone had been removed and accordingly the complainant collected the mobile phone from OP no.1 on 25/11/2014. But the complainant was not satisfied as the defect could not be rectified in respect of which he recorded his remarks on the job sheet (copy Ex.C-4). Again on 27/11/2014, the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.1 vide job sheet Ex.C-5. On 01/12/14 when the complainant approached OP no.1 to collect the mobile hand set, he observed that the problem of 'Alphabet Missing' still persisted as a result of which OP asked the complainant to come on the next day. Again on 02/12/2014, when the complainant collected his mobile phone from Op no.1, he wrote a note on the job sheet that he was not satisfied with the rectification of the problem of the mobile phone. On 03/12/2014, the complainant again lodged a complaint with Op telephonically.

8. Whereas the only plea taken by OP is that whenever the complainant approached it, the defect in the mobile phone was rectified upto the satisfaction of the complainant and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.

9. The main problem which cropped up in the mobile phone was regarding 'Alphabet Missing'. During the course of arguments, the mobile phone in dispute was presented in the court and we observed that the alphabets i.e. F, G, H, S,T were missing from the list of key alphabets displayed on the screen. Inspite of rectifying the problem again and again the problem of 'missing alphabet' could not be rectified by OP. So far as the problem of 'Network missing' is concerned, that depends upon the power and range of the mobile transmission towers. This problem is not of permanent nature and has nothing to do with the mobile phone hand set. It can occur in any mobile phone. At the time of oral arguments, ld. counsel for the Op could not furnish any explanation as to why the defect in the mobile phone could not be rectified, which amounted to a deficiency of service on their part.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to OP no.2 to get the mobile phone repaired upto the satisfaction of the complainant and if that is not possible to replace the same with a new one of the same make and if that is also not possible to refund an amount of Rs.15000/- price of the mobile phone to the complainant within a period of one month of the receipt of the copy of the order. On failure to comply with the order, OP shall be liable to refund the price with interest @ 9% from the date of order till its realization. OP is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- by way of compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant which is inclusive of the cost of litigation.

Pronounced

Dated: 03/06/2015.

Sonia Bansal D. R. Arora Neelam Gupta

Member President Member 12