Punjab

Sangrur

CC/573/2014

Anmol Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S. Ratol

06 Feb 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                      

                                                          Complaint no. 573                                                                                       Instituted on    01.10.2014

                                                          Decided on       06.02.2015

 

Anmol Goyal minor son of Shri Hem Raj Goyal under the guardianship of his father Shri Hem Raj Goyal, resident of Chaudharian Street, Sadar Bazar, Sangrur.   

                                                …. Complainant.      

       

                                         Versus

 

1      Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited through its MD, B-1, Sector 81, Phase-II, Noida District Gautam Budh Nagar( UP).

2.     Gaurav Communications, Authorized Service Center, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited Opposite PWD Rest House, Railway Chowk Sangrur through its authorized Manager.

3.     Jaidka Sound Systems, Vijay Chowk, Sangrur through its owner/ proprietor.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT     Shri S.S.Ratol,  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1          Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate                     

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.2&3  Exparte                    

 

Quorum

                   

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                    K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

 

 

 

ORDER    

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Anmol Goyal, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased one 19070 Black Galaxy S Advance Samsung  mobile set from the OP No.3  for Rs.14000/- under invoice number 1963 dated 02.08.2013.  After some days, the mobile set in question started giving problems as the same used to switch off automatically while talking  was on with the other person and it use to hang. The battery backup was very low and the same was also giving  network problem. On the advice of OP No.3, complainant approached the OP No.2  who received the set  and  after repair the same was returned to the complainant.  The set was again giving problem  and after repair same was returned to the complainant by OP No.2 but it was unable to recognize  any SIM and used to dead.  The engineer of OP no.2 admitted that the set is having manufacturing defect and it cannot cured by repair. The complainant has visited  the Ops No.2 and 3 number of times  but the problems are still subsisting. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs - 

i)      OPs be directed either to replace the  mobile set  with new one of the same model or in the alternative to refund Rs.14000/ - along with interest 12% per annum from 2.8.2013 till realization,

ii )    OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP No.1, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability and territorial jurisdiction have been taken up. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant purchased Samsung mobile from OP No.3 on 2.8.2013. It is denied that  set started to give problem after some days from purchase.  It is denied that handset used to switch off automatically while talking  or it used to hand as alleged. It is denied that complainant  visited OP No.2 in the first week of May 2014.  It is matter of record that complainant visited  OP no.2 on 27.06.2014.  It is wrong and denied that the handset was unable to recognize  any SIM and used to dead as alleged. Rather on inspection by the service engineer of OP No.2 it was found that handset was having many non-compatible mobile applications and games and there  was no such data stored leaving  very less memory  due to which handset used to get hanged  and was using less battery backup as so many applications were running all the time.  It is denied that engineer of the OP No.2 admitted that set is having manufacturing defect or it cannot be cured by repair.  It is denied that set  was never OK position since the day of its purchase.  Lastly on 27.06.2014 the  handset was delivered back to complainant in OK condition. Thereafter the complainant has never visited the OP No.2 thus OP cannot comment  on the latest position of the handset. The report of the mechanic is fabricated one to help the complainant. The bare perusal of the alleged report shows that even the alleged expert has failed to explain what kind of manufacturing defect arose in the handset after 11 months of use. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

3.             After receipt of complaint, notices were sent to the OPs  No.2 and 3 but no one appeared for them and as such OPs No.2 and 3 were proceeded exparte on 12.11.2014.

4.             In support of his case the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence.  On the other hand OP No.1 has tendered an affidavit Ex. OP1/1 and closed evidence.

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file, it reveals that the complainant purchased one 19070 Black Galaxy S Advance Samsung mobile set manufactured by OP No.1 from  the OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.14000/- vide  invoice number 1963 dated 02.08.2013 which is Ex.C-1 on record.  The complainant has also produced copy of job sheet issued by OP No.2 on 27.06.2014 Ex.C-2 in which it is mentioned that problem in the mobile set in question is battery backup low, set hang.  The complainant has also produced a report of  Kamal Communication  dated 5.7.2014 Ex.C-3  and his affidavit Ex.C-4 in which it is mentioned that  on 4.7.2014 Hem Raj Goyal ( father of the complainant)  came to him for the checking of his mobile  set i.e. Galaxy S Advance Samsung  with the problem that the mobile set was not recognizing  any SIM and is lying dead without any function. After through checking  and using the mobile set one day and as per my knowledge he found that  the mobile set is not in working condition due to some manufacturing defect in the mobile said and said problem is not  curable one.  On the other hand, OP No.1  has produced only an affidavit  Gaurav Kumar Ex. OP1/1.  Learned counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that  the obligation of the OP under warranty is to set right the mobile hand set by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. The performance of the mobile phone depends  upon the handling of the produce and downloading and installation of various  non-compatible mobile applications, games and virus threat from internet usage.  Learned counsel for the OP No.1 has specifically argued that  if the mobile set  of the complainant was giving problem  from the date of purchase then why the complainant approached the OPs on 27.06.2014 i.e. after a delay of 11 months.

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and thoroughly perusing the entire documents produced on record by the complainant, we find that the complainant has stated that he purchased the mobile set on 2.8.2013 and  it started giving the problem even after some days from its purchase. The complainant has also stated that  he visited the OP No.2  in the first week of May 2014  and then  on 27.6.2014.  We feel that  the arguments of the learned counsel for the OPs are tenable  because  the complainant has taken two different stands in the complaint i.e. firstly he stated that  the mobile set started giving problem from some days from its purchase and secondly he approached the OPs  in the first week of May 2014 and again on 27.6.2014 that is after a long time when the set started giving problem.  So, we do not satisfy with the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant that mobile set in question has a manufacturing defect  because if it has any manufacturing defect that the complainant approached the OPs immediately after the purchase of it. We feel that the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the set has manufacturing defect and it has also a defect which could not be curable. So,  he is not entitled to get his mobile set repaired only.

7.             So, in view of the facts stated above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to repair  the mobile set in question to the full satisfaction of the complainant. In case the set is not repairable then OPs are directed to replace the same with new one of the same model. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.3000/- on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

8.             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.

February 6, 2015.

 

 

 

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

Member                Member                    President

 

 

BBS/-