Punjab

Sangrur

CC/474/2019

Vidya Sagar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Kuldeep Kumar Jain

23 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 474

 Instituted on:   02.09.2019

                                                                         Decided on:     23.01.2023

 

Vidya Sagar aged about 39 years son of Late Sh. Ram Asra R/O Haripura Basti, Sangrur now residing at A-39/A, Backside Mata Naina Devi Mandir, Gurunanak Colony, Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

 

1.     Samsung India Electronics Ltd. 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF Ph-V, Gurgaon, Haryana 122202 through its Managing Director.

2.     Jaidka Communications, Vijay Chowk, Opp. City Police Station, Sangrur 148001 authorized dealer of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. through its Proprietor/partner.

3.     Gaurav Communications, Authorized service Centre, Samsung Mobiles, Street No.2, Near Railway Chowk, Gaushala Road, Sangrur 148001 through its Prop/partner.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:             : Shri  KK Jain, 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 Samsung J810 Black Galaxy J8 for Rs.17,990/-  from OP number 2 vide invoice number 2186 dated 23.10.2018.    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 hanging, network problem and of black display during incoming calls. Further case of complainant is that he visited OP number 3  in the month of August, 2019 and apprised about the problems in the mobile set, who told the complainant that the same are due to heavy moisture in atmosphere as the mobile set got moisture, which cannot be repaired. The complainant requested the OP number 3 to issue job sheet, but he refused to do so.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to refund the purchase amount of the mobile set i.e. Rs.17,990/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment, to further to pay Rs.5500/- 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 complainant is not entitled for any relief as he has concealed material and true facts from this Commission. The mobile set is perfectly working as it has never been submitted by the complainant with the OP number 3 with any kind of problem.  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 denied that the mobile set was ever submitted to the OP number 3 for repairs of the same. Further it has been stated that the mobile of the complainant has fallen in water or some liquid has been spilled over the mobile of complainant and the handset has started malfunctioning.  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 a mobile set make Samsung J810 Black Galaxy J8 for Rs.17,990/-  from OP number 2 vide invoice number 2186 dated 23.10.2018, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2.    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 hanging, network problem and of black display during incoming calls. Further ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant visited OP number 3  in the month of August, 2019 and apprised about the problems in the mobile set, who told the complainant that the same are due to heavy moisture in atmosphere as the mobile set got moisture, which cannot be repaired. The complainant requested the OP number 3 to issue job sheet, but he refused to do so. Further to support his case, the complainant has also produced Ex.C-1 as his sworn affidavit. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has vehemently denied the allegations leveled in the complaint and stated that the mobile set is in working order. Further the learned counsel for the OP has contended that the mobile set was never submitted to the OP number 3 for repairs of the same. Further it has been stated that the mobile of the complainant has fallen in water or some liquid has been spilled over the mobile of complainant and the handset has started malfunctioning.  Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

6.             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.17,990/- for purchase of the mobile set in question. To rebut this contention of the complainant, OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1, affidavit of Shri Anup Kumar Mathur. Ex.OP1/2 is the warranty card of the mobile set.  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 the complainant never approached him for repair of the mobile set in question.  It is further mentioning in the inspection report of OP number 3 dated 24.11.2021 ExOP1/4 shows that during inspection, Sandeep Singh working as Senior Engineer, found that PBA & AMP, camera needs to be replaced for proper working of the hand set in question.  From this, it seems that the mobile set in question is defective one which cannot be repaired.  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.    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 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.17,990/-. 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.2000/- 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.

                        January 23, 2022.