Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1415/2015

Navdeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri Gurinder Pal Sharma

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                            

                                                Complaint No.  1415

                                                Instituted on:    28.10.2015

                                                Decided on:       18.07.2016

 

Navdeep Kaur D/o Jagdev Singh, resident of House No.121, Dashmesh Nagar, Patiala Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant 

                                        Versus

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

2.             M/s. Gaurav Communication, Opposite PWD Rest House, Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

3.             Narang Electronics, Opposite Babu Meshi (Bara, Patiala 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. Navdeep 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 Tab-3 model number SM-T2110MKYINS from OP number 3  for Rs.16,000/- vide invoice number 32 dated 21.08.2014 with one year warranty of the tab in question against any manufacturing defect or poor workmanship. It is further averred in the complaint that on 30.8.2014, the tab in question created problem of auto off/auto restart, and as such, the complainant immediately approached OP number 2 for rectification the said defect, but the OP number 2 told the complainant to come after three four days and accordingly the complainant approached OP number 3 after four days and OP number 2 told that the problem of software has been rectified. Again in the second week of September, 2014, the tab in question gave the same problem and approached the OP number 2 and the problem was rectified. Again on 4.12.2014, the same problem  arose and the complainant approached OP number 2, who kept the tab with him and asked the complainant to come after 4/5 days and job sheet dated 12.12.2014 was issued to the complainant, but the tab was not made in working order and further told that the problem therein is not curable.  It is further stated that thereafter the complainant filed a complaint before this Forum bearing number 214 dated 17.4.2015 and the same was allowed and thereafter on 28.8.2015 the OP number 2 delivered the tab in question to the complainant, but again the tab in question created some problem and the complainant went to the OP number 2 who on checking issued the job sheet number 5712 dated 29.9.2015 and thereafter the complainant approached the Ops so many times to get the tab in question, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund him the purchase price of the tab in question i.e. Rs.16,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realisation 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.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant had purchased the hand set in question on 21.8.2014 with one year warranty, which has expired on 20.8.2015 and the hand set in question was submitted for repairs on 29.9.2015 after the expiry of the warranty period, that the complainant is not entitled to any relief,  and the complainant has been making false allegations,  that the performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product and that the complainant has not alleged any irreparable defect in the set and that the set in present case is out of warranty as warranty period expired on 20.8.2015 and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. On merits,  it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the hand set in question on 21.8.2014 from OP number 3 for Rs.16,000/-.  However, it has been denied that on 30.8.2014, the set created any problem therein and it is further denied that the complainant approached OP number 2 on 30.8.2014. Further it is denied that on 4.12.2014 the tab in question started giving same problem of auto off.  However, it is admitted that the complainant approached OP number 2 on 12.12.2014 and job sheet was issued and hand set was duly rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant and returned the same to the complainant within a reasonable time.  It is stated further that in compliance of the judgment dated 7.8.2015, the complainant submitted his tab for repairs, which were duly carried out and returned to the same to the complainant on 8.9.2015 with his full satisfaction.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 affidavits, Ex.C-3 copy of expert report, Ex.C-4 copy of bill, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 copies of job sheets, Ex.C-8 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-11 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-12 copy of order dated 7.8.2015, Ex.C-13 copy of job sheet and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1   has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit of Gaurav Kumar along with annexure Ex.R-1, Ex.OP1/2 expert report dated 6.6.2016, Ex.OP1/3 affidavit of Harpreet Dass 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 acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-4 is the copy of the invoice dated 21.08.2014 issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the tab in question for Rs.16,000/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the tab in question and availed the services of the OP number 3, which has been manufactured by OP number 1.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that the tab in question purchased by the complainant became defective with the problem ‘auto restart’, as is evident from the copy of job card sheet EX.C-6, whereas the OP number 1 has denied that the complainant ever approached OP number 3. Further it is an admitted fact of the Ops that the tab in question was having one year warranty against any of the defects. It is further an admitted fact that the complainant earlier filed a complaint bearing number 214 dated 17.4.2015 before this Forum, which was decided on 7.8.2015, whereby the Ops number 1 and were directed to repair the mobile set in question and make it in fully working condition without charging any amount from the complainant.  As such, in compliance of the orders of this Forum, the device was repaired by the OP number 2 up to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. But, again on 29.9.2015, the device in question suffered the same problem and the complainant approached Op number 2 for checking of the tab in question and the OP number 2 after checking the tab, issued job sheet number 5712 dated 29.9.2015 and thereafter the tab was never returned to the complainant after repairs.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the warranty of the tab has already expired on 20.08.2015, whereas the tab in question was handed over to the Op number 2 on 29.9.2015.  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the OP number 1 and 2 that the tab in question was handed over to the OP number 2 after warranty, as the tab in question was suffering problems earlier to that and even during the warranty period the tab created problems, as is evident from the copies of the job sheets on record as Ex.C-5, Ex.C-6 as well as from the copy of the order of this Forum dated 7.8.2015, whereby this Forum directed the Ops to hand over the repaired tab in question to the complainant.  It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 2 and 3 chose to remain exparte and even did not appear to deny this allegation of the complainant that he visited it to get the problem of the tab rectified. Further the complainant has also produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 to support his averments in the complaint.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has also produced  his own affidavit Ex.OP1/1, wherein the main allegation of the OP is that the complainant submitted the tab for repairs after the expiry of the warranty period.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not return the tab in question (if it was in working order) to the complainant and kept the same with them without any reason.    In the circumstances, it is clear that the tab in question supplied to the complainant is defective one which is beyond repairs.     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 of the complainant and direct OPs to deliver the complainant a new tab of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.16,000/- being the cost of the tab along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the earlier complaint i.e. 17.4.2015 till realisation.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 18, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member