Haryana

Ambala

CC/238/2018

Rajesh Kumar Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronic PVt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

01 Apr 2019

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                         

Complaint case no.        : 238 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution         : 01.08.2018

                                                          Date of decision   : 01.04.2019

 

 

Rajesh Kumar Garg, resident of House No.1141-42/1, Alu Godam, Kori Mandi, Bengali Mahalla, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.  Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd(Regd. Office) through its Regional Manager, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.

2.  Mobile. Com through its Authorised Signatory, # 5393, Nicholoson Road, Ambala Cantt, Haryana. 

3.  Kohli Telecom, 114/6/13 in front of Parkat Shiv Mandhir, Ambala Cantt.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member

 

 

Present:       Complainant in person alongwith his counsel, Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate.

                   Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for OP Nos.1 & 3.

                   OP No.2 proceeded against  exparte v.o.d.11.09.2018.

 

Order:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ops’) praying for issuance of  following directions to the Ops:-

1. To pay Rs. 13,900/-(cost of mobile) alongwith interest @18% p.a. till the date of its realization. 
2. To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the mental  agony and physical harassment suffered by  him.
3. To pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigations charges. 

Or

Any other relief which  this Hon’ble Forum may deem  fit.

 

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Samsung Mobile, having Model Samsung Galaxy J7 Prime from the OP No.2 on 21.12.2017 for Rs.13,900/- vide Invoice bearing no.GST-1358. The complainant has faced the problem with handset from the date of its purchase, as it is having manufacturing defect.  The said mobile is having hanging problem, heating problem, switch off on its own, its battery gets discharged within an hour and take extra ordinary time to charge and the handset is also having call drop problem. He took it to the OP No.3 for its repair, who kept the same and gave a job sheet dated 14.06.2018. The OP No.3, handed over the mobile to the complainant, after its repair and told that it will work properly in future. But even after the repair of the handset by the OP No.3, the problems persisted. He again approached the OP No.3, for rectification of the problems in the mobile set but it flatly refused to rectify the defects with the plea that it is beyond repair.  Due to non repair of the mobile set by the OP No.3, complainant has suffered huge financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                OP No.2 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex parte by this Forum vide order dated 11.09.2018. Upon notice, OP Nos.1 & 3 appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; no territorial jurisdiction; no cause of action; has not come with clean hands and the complaint is baseless. On merits it is stated that the complainant for the first and last time approached the OP Nos. 1 & 3 on 14.06.2018 regarding the problem in his unit. The engineer of the company checked the unit and found that the charging jeck & data cable of the unit needed replacement. The engineer told the complainant that the unit needs replacement of charging jeck and data cable of unit and the same will be O.K. after replacement of said parts. On the consent of the complainant, the charging jeck and data cable of unit were replaced and the unit started working OK.  It is further stated that OP No.1 has given one year warranty for the unit. The complainant never reported any problem in the unit after 14.6.2018. There is no deficiency in service on part of OP Nos.1 & 3 and the complaint filed against them may be dismissed with cost.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as annexure C-1 & C-2 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP Nos.1 & 3 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A  alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-2 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the contested parties and carefully gone through the case file.

 5.               The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the mobile set in question, which the complainant purchased on 21.12.2017 for Rs.13,900/- from the OP No.2, got defective, immediately after its purchase. He took it to OP No.3 for its repair, who kept his mobile set and issued a job sheet dated 14.06.2018, Annexure C-2. Even after the repair by the OP No.3, the problem in the handset remained the same. He again approached the OP No.3 for its repair but it refused to receive the handset and told him that mobile is not faulty.  By not repairing his defective mobile set, the OPs have committed deficiency in service.

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP Nos. 1 & 3 has argued that complainant approached the OP No.3, for repair of his mobile set on 14.06.2018, the problem occurred in the mobile set was rectified and mobile was handed over to him and thereafter he never approached either to the OP No.1 or OP No.3. Thus, the OP Nos.1 & 3 cannot be said to be deficient in providing services to the complainant.

6.                Annexure C-1, is the copy of invoice, whereby the complainant purchased the mobile in question from OP No.2 on 21.12.2017, for an amount of Rs.13,900/-. From the warranty card, Annexure R-1, it is evident that the warranty of one year has been given by the manufacturer i.e. OP No.1 for the Samsung Galaxy mobile phone. From the job sheet, Annexure C-2, it is apparent that complainant handed over the mobile set in question to the OP No.3 for its repair on 14.06.2018. Meaning thereby the mobile set in question got defective, approximately within 6 months from the date of its purchase i.e. within warranty period. Since the mobile in question got defective during the warranty, therefore, it was the bounded duty of OP No.3, being the service center, to rectify the defect(s) of the mobile set in question, free of cost. These days having a mobile set is basic necessity, by not repairing the mobile set of the complainant, the OP No.3, has deprived him from its use. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case, where the complainant is entitled to get a new mobile set in replacement of the impugned defective mobile. The OP No.3 being service centre and the op no.1 being the manufacture are thus liable to replace the mobile set in question with the new one. They are also liable to compensate the complainant for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him  alongwith litigation cost. It may be stated here that the complainant in the complaint has merely averred that he had purchased the mobile  in question from the OP No.2. Neither any specific allegation against the OP No.2 has been levelled by the complainant nor it has been proved, therefore, the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the present complaint against OP no.2 and dispose of the same against OP Nos.1 & 3 with the direction to replace the Mobile set in question with a new one of the same model with requisite warranty and if the same model is not available then to refund an amount of Rs. 13,900/- being the price of the mobile and also pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation/ litigation expenses.  The OP Nos.1 & 3 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid direction jointly and severally, within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :01.04.2019

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma) (Ruby Sharma)     (NeenaSandhu)

              Member                        Member             President