Punjab

Sangrur

CC/562/2021

Kamaljit Singh Sohi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Gurpreet Singh Chatha

02 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 562

 Instituted on:   05.05.2021

                                                                         Decided on:     02.08.2022

 

Kamaljit Singh Sohi son of Sapinder Singh, R/O Jujhar Nagar, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

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

2.     Shri Sai Communication, SCO No.1-A & 2-A, First Floor, Railway Road, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur through its Authorized Manager.

3.     Kamal Communication, Near Govt. College, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur through its owner/Prop.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:             :Shri  G.S.Chatha, Adv.              

For the OP No.1                    :Shri  J.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.2&3                     :Exparte.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

                        Sarita Garg, Member

 

       FINAL ORDER

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing a mobile set make Samsung S20 model No.G980 for Rs.66,000/-  from OP number 3 vide invoice number 792 dated 28.5.2020.    The grievance of complainant is that after few days of its purchase, the mobile set in question started giving troubles, such as, it used to switch off automatically while talking was on with the other person, network problem and unable to attach with the head phones etc. Further case of complainant is that he visited OP number 3 and apprised about the problems in the mobile set in question, who advised the complainant to visit OP number 2. The complainant visited OP number 2 who kept the mobile set and returned after four days and the set was again giving the same problems.  Further the mobile set in question was handed over to OP number 2 on 25.2.2021 who issued receipt number 4320315544 and after checking OP number 2 told that the mobile set in question is suffering from manufacturing defects. Though the complainant requested the OPs to replace the mobile set in question with a new one, but all in vain. The complainant has alleged further that there is manufacturing defects in the mobile set, due to which the defects in the mobile set are developing very shortly.  It is stated further that the mobile set in question has developed defects during the warranty period, as such it should be replaced with a new one.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set with a new one of same model or to refund its cost i.e. Rs.66,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment, to further to pay Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that opposite party number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3.             In reply filed by the OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties, that no cause of action has arose to the complainant to file the present complaint against the OPs. The hand set in question was perfectly working when it was returned to the complainant after rectifying the problem on 1.3.2021.  The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging totally false facts and by concealing the true facts. Further it is stated that the problems in the hand set in question have been duly rectified and has no defect and same was perfectly working when it was handed back to the complainant by the authorized service centre. It is stated further that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. It is further stated that the complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence on record.   On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied by the OP. Even the purchase of the mobile set vide invoice number 792 dated 28.05.2020 for Rs.66,000/- has been denied.   It has been denied that the mobile set was having any problems therein. It is stated further that the complainant has only visited OP number 2 on 25.2.2021 and has never visited it prior to 25.2.2021.  Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing a mobile set make Samsung S20 model No.G980 for Rs.66,000/-  from OP number 3 vide invoice number 792 dated 28.5.2020.   Further the learned counsel has argued that after few days of its purchase, the mobile set in question started giving troubles, such as, it used to switch off automatically while talking was on with the other person, network problem and unable to attach with the head phones etc., so complainant visited OP number 3 and apprised about the problems in the mobile set in question, who advised the complainant to visit OP number 2, as such the complainant visited OP number 2 but nothing fruitful was done nor the mobile set was made in the working order. Though the mobile set in question was handed over to OP number 2 on 25.2.2021 who issued receipt number 4320315544 and after checking OP number 2 told that the mobile set in question is suffering from manufacturing defects, but nothing was done. The complainant has argued further that there is manufacturing defects in the mobile set, due to which the defects in the mobile set are developing very shortly, as such has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has argued vehemently that the mobile set in question was perfectly working when it was returned to the complainant after rectifying the problem on 1.3.2021.  The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging totally false facts and by concealing the true facts. Further it is argued that the problems in the hand set in question have been duly rectified and has no defect and same was perfectly working when it was handed back to the complainant by the authorized service centre. It is further argued by the learned counsel for OP number 1 that the complainant is not entitled to any relief nor any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product is on record. It is further argued that the complainant has only visited OP number 2 on 25.2.2021 and has never visited it prior to 25.2.2021. 

7.             To prove his case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit wherein he has stated that the mobile set in question suffers from manufacturing defects. Ex.C-2 is the copy of invoice which shows that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.66,000/- for purchase of the mobile set in question on 20.5.2020. Ex.C-3 is the copy of acknowledgement slip dated 25.02.2021 showing the defects description as headphone jack problem which clearly revealed that the complainant went to the service centre of the OP number 1 with the above said problems. Ex.C-4 is the expert opinion report about the mobile set in question which is dated 03.03.2021 wherein it has been clearly mentioned by the expert Shri  Kamal Preet Singh that  he checked the mobile set on 3.3.2021 and found that the mobile set was unable to attach with the ear phone incoming voice after sometime. It was having the short battery life and similarly charging time was also very short. The expert has further mentioned in the report that after thorough checking and inspection of the mobile set in question, he found that there is manufacturing defects which are not curable. To rebut this contention, nothing has been produced by the OP number 2 nor any expert report to counter the report of the expert of the complainant has been produced on record.  In the circumstances, we find that the OP number 1 has miserably failed to establish on record that the mobile set in question is in perfect working condition, rather the complainant has successful in proving the case that the mobile set suffers from manufacturing defects as reported in the expert opinion by Shri Kamalpreet Singh expert in his report Ex.C-4 on record.   As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct Ops to replace the mobile set in question with a new one of the same model or to refund to the complainant the cost of mobile set i.e. an amount of Rs.66,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 05.05.2021 till realization in full. However, it is made clear that the complainant shall be bound to return the defective mobile set alongwith all its accessories/attachments to the OPs at the time of receiving the amount of the mobile set. We further direct Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses. 

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        August 2, 2022.