Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1251/2021

Ramandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Gurpreet Singh Chatha

12 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                         Complaint No. 1251

 Instituted on:   13.10.2021

                                                                         Decided on:     12.03.2024

 

Ramandeep Singh son of Sh. Roop Singh, resident of Village Jahagir, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

 

1.     Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFC-1, Tower, 61, Nehru Palace, New Delhi through its MD/CEO.

2.     Chhabra Communication, Near Bus Stand, Sangrur through its prop/partner.

3.     Samsung Service Centre/Gaurav Communication, 1^st Floor Inside of Gaushala Road, Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.

             ….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

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

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 D Samsung A31 Prism Black 6/128 for Rs.21,000/-  from OP number 2 vide invoice number CH01418/2020-21 dated 04.09.2020.    The grievance of complainant is that from the very beginning the mobile set in question is suffering with the problems like network problem, slow processing and no service etc. Further case of complainant is that he visited OPs number 2 and 3 so many times but the defect was not removed. The OP number 3 issued job sheet dated 25.8.2021 and the OP number 3 collected the above said mobile and after passing of five days, the OP number 3 returned the mobile set in question but the problems were then and there. The complainant even visited OP number 3 on 31.8.2021 but no job sheet was issued and apprised about the same problem, the OP number 3 upgraded the software, but the problem in the hand set was not removed. The complainant requested the OPs to replace the mobile set with a new one, but nothing was done. 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 in question with a new one or to  refund the amount of the mobile set i.e. Rs.21,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay Rs.11,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and 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 non joinder of the parties, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. As per record of OP number 3 the hand set in question was submitted for the first time for repairs on 25.8.2021 after more than 11 months of purchase and extensive usage, with the problem of “No Network”, that the complainant has filed the present complaint with mischievous intentions, that  the complainant is not entitled for any relief as he has concealed material and true facts from this Commission. The mobile set in question has been duly rectified by OP number 3 free of cost under warranty and that the mobile set is perfectly working.  The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging totally false facts and by concealing the true facts. 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. It is stated further that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging totally false facts.   On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied by the OP. Even the purchase of the mobile set from OP number 2 has been denied.   It has been submitted that complainant for the first time approached OP number 3 on 25.8.2021 after more than 11 months of purchasing the handset and extensively using the same and thereafter the complainant never approached OP number 3.  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 the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing the mobile set in question for Rs.21,000/-  from OP number 2 vide invoice, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-1.    The grievance of complainant is that from the very beginning the mobile set in question is not working properly and is suffering with the problems of network, slow processing and no service etc. Further learned counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant visited OP number 3  on the first time on 25.8.2021 only i.e. after 11 months of purchase of the mobile set in question. Further to support his case, the complainant has also produced Ex.C-4 as his sworn affidavit. Ex.C-2 is the copy of job sheet dated 25.8.2021 wherein in the column defect it has been stated that there is no network and no service in the mobile set in question.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has vehemently denied the allegations leveled in the complaint and stated that the mobile set is in working order.  Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

6.             To prove his case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-4 affidavit wherein he has stated that the mobile set in question suffers from manufacturing defects. Ex.C-1 is the copy of invoice which shows that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.21,000/- for purchase of the mobile set in question.  Ex.C-3 is the expert report dated 05.09.2021 of Jaspreet Singh of Kings Telecom, Sangrur, wherein it is mentioned that after inspection of the mobile set, it is found that network problem, slow processing and no service etc. There is manufacture defect in the said mobile.  To rebut this contention of the complainant, OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1, affidavit of Shri Sandeep Sahijwani. Ex.OP1/2   is the inspection report dated 13.10.2023 of Gaurav Communication wherein it is stated that during inspection he found that mobile set was working as per standard however front screen is in broken condition and out of warranty hence repair needs to be done on chargeable basis. It is worth mentioning here that OP number 3, who is the service centre of OP number 1 chose to remain exparte, but produced his affidavit Ex.OP1/3 stating that during inspection, he found that mobile was working as per standard however front screen is in broken condition and out of the warranty hence repair needs to be done on chargeable basis. Ex.OP1/4 is the acknowledgement service request.  From both of the inspection reports, it is clear that the mobile set in question is defective one and the defects arose during the warranty period of one year.  In the circumstances, we find further 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, due to which the complainant had to visit OP number 3 for getting the mobile set repaired, which was not repaired by OP number 3.  We may also mention that the OP number 1 returned the mobile set in question after checking on 2.11.2023 before this Commission in the switch off condition.   As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 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.21,000/-. However, it is made clear that the complainant shall be bound to return the defective mobile set alongwith all its accessories/attachments to the OP number 1 at the time of receiving the amount of the mobile set. We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses. 

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

9.             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.

                        March 12, 2024.