Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1544/2015

Gurpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri Gurinder Pal Sharma

19 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                         

                                                Complaint No.  1544

                                                Instituted on:    26.11.2015

                                                Decided on:       19.05.2016

 

Gurpreet Kaur wife of Late Deepinder Pal Singh, resident of Krishan Bagh Colony, House No.370, Outside Nabha Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. B-1, Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida, District Gautam Budha Nagar (UP) through its Managing Director.

2.             M/s. Gaurav Communication, Gaushala Road, Near Railway Chowk, School Wali Gali, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

3.             S.R. Sales Opposite Jyoti Sarup Gurudwara, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri G.P.Sharma, Adv.

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

For OP No.2&3         :               Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Gurpreet Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Samsung GT-I9060ZWD-white (Dual Sim) mobile phone bearing IMEI number  352742062553244 for Rs.16,700/- vide invoice number RI-40 dated 12.04.2014 from OP number 3, which was having one year warranty/guarantee. It is further averred in the complaint that the bill of the mobile in question was issued in the name of the husband of the complainant.  It is stated further that the husband of the complainant has now died. It is further averred in the complaint that in the month of December, 2014, the problem of auto switch developed in the mobile phone in question, as such, she approached the OP number 3 for removing the defect and after inspecting the mobile phone, the OP advised the complainant to approach OP number 2 i.e. service centre to get rectified the defect therein, as such, she approached the OP number 2, who told that there is problem of motherboard and if the complainant wants to get replaced the same, then she has to pay for the cost of the same.  The complainant has further averred in the case that she apprised the OP number 2 that since the mobile set in question is under warranty and the defect has arisen in the warranty period, as such, she requested the OP number 2 to repair the same free of cost, but all in vain.  It is further averred that earlier the complainant filed a complaint, which was withdrawn.  It is further averred that the mobile set in question is in possession of the OP number 2 since the date of deposit i.e. 9.5.2015 and have not returned the mobile set since then.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the defective mobile set with a new one or in the alternative to refund her the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.16,700/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 2 and 3 were  proceeded exparte on 20.01.2016.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint of the complainant is baseless, devoid of any merits whatsoever and without any cause of action, that the Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint,  that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that  there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question, as such the same should be dismissed. It has been further stated that the mobile set in question has been submitted for repairs after the expiry of the warranty period i.e. on 9.5.2015. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 3 vide bill dated 12.4.2014 for Rs.16,700/-. Further it has been denied that in the month of December, 2014 the mobile set switch off and did not start again.  However, it is further stated that the complainant has committed breach of warranty terms and conditions as the hand set in question has been mishandled leading to it being liquid logged causing damage to the internal parts of the making the hand set dead.  It is further stated that the mobile hand set is in the custody of OP number 2 since 09.05.2015 as the complainant intentionally with ulterior motive has left the mobile set with the OP number 2.  It is further stated that the complainant has failed to prove on record that hand set in question cannot be repaired, thus she is not entitled for replacement or refund of the price of the mobile set.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of job sheet, Ex.C-4 copy of previous complaint, Ex.C-5 copy of previous reply dated 29.5.2015 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1  and Ex.OP1/2 affidavits, Ex.OP1/3 copy of expert report and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             First of all, we have perused the copy of bill of the mobile set in question Ex.C-2 which is in the name of one ‘Gurinder Pal’ alleged to be the husband of the complainant, who has since died. A bare perusal of the file clearly reveals that the complainant has not produced on record any death certificate of Deepinder Pal to show that he has died, nor there is any other evidence on record to show that she is the wife of Deepinder Pal, since deceased as alleged in the complaint.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why she did not produce the said documents on record, as the complainant has to prove her case at her own.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove her to be the consumer of the Ops.

 

7.             Further it is on the record that the mobile set was purchased on 12.4.2014 which was having one year warranty and was handed over to the OP number 2 on 09.05.2015 as is evident from the copy of service request dated 9.5.2015.  We may mention here that the OP number 1 has clearly mentioned in the reply that ‘the mobile hand set in question has been badly mishandled by the complainant as the hand set was found to be ‘liquid logged’ on internal inspection of the hand set on 9.5.2015 by OP number 2’.  But, the complainant has not produced on record any expert report to show that the mobile set was not ‘liquid logged’ rather it was having a manufacturing defects therein.  Again there is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why she did not produce the same on record to establish her case.  In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 19, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member