Punjab

Sangrur

CC/497/2016

Rajwinder Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri J.S.Sarao

16 Feb 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 497                                                                                         

                                                                  Instituted on:   19.08.2016                                                                                   

                                                                 Decided on:    16.02.2017

 

Rajwinder Gupta son of Hari Chand Gupta r/o House No.913, Street No.1, Thalesh Bagh Colony, Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.   Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Limited, 20th to 24th floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road

Sector 43 DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana -122202 through its Managing Director.

 

2.       Snap Deal Corporate Head Office, Jasper Infotech Pvt. Limited, 246, Ist Floor, Phase-III Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

 

3.       Savex Technologies Pvt. Limited , BLR-PC C/o Pro Connect Supply chain Solutions Ltd. SY No.102/1, Adakamaranhalli,  Village Dasanapura  Hobli,  Makali Post City Bangalore/ State Karnataka-562123 through its Prop./Partner.

 

4.     Gaurav Communication, Authorized Service Centre, Samsung Mobiles, Street No.2, Near Railway Chowk, Gaushala Road, Sangrur through its Prop./Partner.  

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri J.S.Sarao,  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1          :      Shri  J.S.Sahni,  Advocate                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2          :      Shri  G.S.Toor,  Advocate                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.3&4     :       Exparte.

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Rajwinder Gupta, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Samsung mobile set bearing Model Samsung Glaxy-J3 from OP No.2 through online for Rs.8490/- vide invoice no. BLSD1617244464 dated 05.07.2016  under one year warranty.   In the first week of August 2016,  the said set  started giving problem of display blank during  incoming calls. The complainant approached the OP no.4  and got checked  the mobile set and technician of OP no.4 told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect  which cannot be repaired and  the said mobile set kept  by OP no.4 and a job sheet no.2373 dated 10.08.2016  was issued by the OP No.4 who assured to deliver the new mobile set within 2/3 days but despite several visits the OP  no.4 refused to change the mobile set with new one.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund the price of the said mobile set i.e. Rs.8490/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

 

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

 

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP No.1, preliminary objections on the grounds of concealment of true facts, territorial jurisdiction, abuse of process of law, cause of action and misuse of process of law have been taken up. On merits, purchase of mobile set in question under one year warranty subject to warranty terms and conditions is admitted.  It is denied that in the first week of August 2016 the mobile set started giving problem of display blank during incoming calls.  It is correct that the complainant approached OP no.4 on 10.08.2016 and job sheet was issued to the complainant and he was advised to take back the handset on next day but he did not take back the same due to ulterior motive.  There is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. It is further submitted that the complainant has neither alleged any specific irrepairable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated  report of expert. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.2, it is denied that the OP has sold by product to the complainant as alleged by the complainant. The OP no.2 has no liability and guarantee or warranty regarding the mobile set purchased by the complainant.  It is submitted that  invoice is sent by the seller i.e. OP no.3 and not the OP no.2. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.2.                  

4.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs no.3 and 4 did not appear and as such OPs no.3 and 4 were proceeded exparte on 30.09.2016.

5.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs no.1 and 2 have  tendered documents Ex.OP No.1/1 to Ex.OP no.1/3 and Ex.OP.2/1 to Ex.OP.2/3 and closed evidence.   

6.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs No.1 and 2, we find that the complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile bearing Model no. Samsung Glaxy-J3 from OP No.2 through online for Rs.8490/- vide invoice no. BLSD1617244464 dated 05.07.2016 under one year warranty which is evident from retail invoice Ex.C-2 and in the first week of August 2016,  the said set  started giving problem of display blank during  incoming calls. Then complainant approached the OP no.4  and got checked  the mobile set and technician of OP no.4 told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect  which cannot be repaired and  the said mobile set kept  by OP no.4 and a job sheet no.2373 dated 10.08.2016  was issued by the OP No.4 who assured to deliver the new mobile set within 2/3 days but despite several visits the OP  no.4 refused to change the mobile set with new one. 

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.1 has specifically argued that the complainant has not produced report of an expert regarding manufacturing defect. It is clear from the job sheet dated 10.08.2016 that the mobile set in question is with the OPs as  in the job sheet in front of column " I have received the equipment in satisfactory working condition" the space is blank  which shows that the  mobile set was not delivered to the complainant till today. We feel that as the mobile set in question was in possession of the OPs since 10.08.2016 then there was no occasion for the complainant to get inspected/ examined his mobile set in question from an expert and also can get a report of an expert report. Moreover from the perusal of the reply we find that  the OP no.1 has stated that the handset was duly rectified and complainant was  called upon to take back his handset but he  with ulterior motive did not take back his handset.  The complainant has stated in his complaint that the OP no.4 assured him to deliver a new mobile set in place of the defective one  and later on OP no.4 refused to do so but  surprisingly the  complainant  has not taken any step after refusal of the OP no.4 to replace the mobile set. Even he did not send a letter/ legal notice to higher authorities of the OPs in this regard rather he straightaway filed the present complaint. The OP no.1 has also submitted in its reply that the mobile set was/ is in proper working condition but the complainant did not take back the same due to ulterior motive. Here, the OP no.1 has not produced on record any document which shows that they made any effort to give the mobile set in question to the complainant.  The OPs no. 3&4 did not appear to contest the case of the complainant rather they remain exparte. As such evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted.

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we  feel that the complainant has failed to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question rather the OPs are ready to give the mobile set in question in proper working condition. Accordingly,  we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs no.1 and 4 who are jointly and severally liable  to give the mobile set in question in proper working condition to the complainant. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.3000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.

 9.            This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                February 16, 2017

 

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg)   (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                               Member            Member                         President

 

 

 

BBS/-