DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                  Complaint no. 691                                                                                        

                                                                 Instituted on:   14.12.2016                                                                                   

                                                                 Decided on:    06.04.2017

Ashish Grover son of Sh. Subhash Chand Grover resident of # 56 Partap Nagar, Sangrur.         

                                                        …. Complainant

                                Versus

1.     S.R.Sales, Opp. Jyoti Sarup Gurudwara Nabha Gate Sangrur through its proprietor/ partner.              

2.  Gaurav Communication, Samsung Care Centre Near Railway Chowk,  Sangrur through its proprietor/ partner.

3.     Samsung India Electronic Private Limited  7th  & 8th Floor, IFC-1 Tower, 61, Nehru Palace, New Delhi through its M.D/ CEO.

                                                ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Amit Aggarwal Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.1&2  :      Exparte                         

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3          :      Shri  J.S.Sahni,  Advocate                         

Quorum

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ORDER:  

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Ashish Grover, 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 A-700FZKG from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.22990/- vide invoice no. 1101 dated 30.12.2015 under one year warranty.   In the month of September, the mobile set in question started giving problem of touch, display  and blinking for  which the complainant approached the OP No.2 who rectified the defect but again set started giving same problem and OP no.2 after repair retuned the mobile set  but the touch and mobile phone did not response properly  and display was blinking. The complainant demanded the job sheet from OP no.2  but he refused to issue the same.  On 10/12/2016  the mobile phone stopped working completely by auto switched off.  The handset has manufacturing defect as it got defected number of times.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund  the purchase amount of mobile set i.e. Rs.22990/- along with interest @18% per annum,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.22000/- 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&2 were proceeded exparte.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.3, it is denied that in the month of September the complainant approached OP no.2 rather the complainant has never approached the OP no.2 with any kind of problem in the alleged handset. The complainant has never submitted his alleged mobile thus the question of taking it back under protest does not arise. The question of issuing the job sheet does not arise when the alleged handset has never been submitted with OP no.2.  It is submitted that whenever any handset of customer is retained by OP no.2 for repair then job sheet is issued as a token of receipt of handset. Thus, the complainant has concocted a totally false story to take benefit of his own wrong. It is denied that the OP no.2 refused to issue the job sheet. It is wrong that OP no.2 showed his inability to rectify the defects. It is denied that mobile set has a manufacturing defect. The OPs cannot be directed to refund the price of the handset when the same is being used by the complainant till date. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.3.  

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

5.             It is specific case of the complainant that in the month of September the touch and display of  his mobile set  started giving problem for which he approached OP no.2 who after repair returned the mobile to him but the defect could not be rectified  and on 10.12.2016 the mobile set stopped working completely by auto switched off. The Op no.2 was  again approached to rectify the defect but he told that there is manufacturing defect in it. 

6.             To prove his case, the complainant has produced on record report of an expert namely Nirbhai Singh alongwith his affidavit Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 respectively wherein he has stated that  after checking he found that mobile was given the problem of " auto switched off"  and also given the problems of  blank display and network . The mobile set has manufacturing defect and same problem is not curable one. On the other hand, OP has also produced report of their expert namely Kulwant Singh Ex.OP3/2 wherein  he has stated that he checked the mobile set after received the same from counsel of the company on 27.02.2017  and found that there was only carbon on the battery connector and he cleaned the carbon from the battery connector and then he switch on the mobile and used the same about 2/3 hours and found that there is no manufacturing defect or any other defect in the mobile set as alleged by the complainant and the mobile set is in OK condition and is working satisfactorily. Prior to that the complainant  never approached  our service centre for any kind of problem in the mobile set as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. 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.

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint and the OPs to refund the purchase amount of mobile set i.e. Rs.22990/- subject to return of defective mobile set by the complainant. We further order the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 60 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

                April 6, 2017

                                         ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)      (Sarita Garg)     (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                     Member                      Member                President

BBS/-