Punjab

Sangrur

CC/472/2016

Avtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Surjit Singh Randhawa

20 Oct 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 472                                                                                     

                                                         Instituted on:   01.08.2016                                                                                   

                                                          Decided on:    20.10.2016

 

Avtar Singh son of Sher Singh resident of Ram Nagar, Basti, H.No.324, Opposite Railway Station, Sangrur.      

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.   Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Limited, through its MD, B-1 Sector 81, Phase-II, Noida, District Gautam Budha Nagar ( UP).

2.  Gaurav Communication, authorized service center, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, Opposite PWD Rest House Railway Chowk, Sangrur  through its authorized Manager.

3. Chhabra Communication, Opposite Bus Stand, Sangrur through its owner/proprietor.                                                                       ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri S.S.Randhawa,  Advocate                          

 

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

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.2&3     :       Exparte.

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C. Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

     

 

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Avtar Singh, 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 bearing Model Galaxy A7 Gold from OP No.3 for Rs.25000/- vide invoice no. 3409 dated 19.08.2015 under one year warranty.   After some days from its purchase, the mobile set in question started creating problems i.e. auto-restart and hanging for which the complainant approached the OP No.3 who advised to approach the OP No.2. Then the complainant approached OP No.2  on 16.06.2016  and OP no.2 issued job card. Thereafter the complainant visited the OP No.2 to collect the said set  and deposited the job sheet and received the mobile set from the OP No.2. When the complainant returned  his house  then the mobile set again started giving problems and complainant again visited the OP no.2 but this time OP no.2 told  it cannot be repaired as it has manufacturing defect. Thereafter the complainant visited number of times to OPs no.2 and 3 but the problems persisted. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to replace the mobile set with new one of same model or in the alternative to refund Rs.25000/-  as price of the cell phone 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.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs  did not appear and as such OPs were proceeded exparte on 15.09.2016  and the case was fixed for complainant's exparte evidence and on 30.09.2016 the complainant had closed his evidence and the case was fixed for arguments but after fixing the case for arguments the OP no.1 had appeared through Shri J.S.Sahni Advocate  and moved an application to allow the OP No.1 only to join the proceedings at this stage which was allowed on 10.10.2016 after hearing both the learned counsel for the parties.

3.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.1 has not produced any documentary evidence.

4.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.1, we find that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone of Samsung company from OP No.3 on 19.08.2015 for an amount of Rs.25000/- under warranty of one year which is evident from retail invoice number 3409 dated 19.08.2015 which is Ex.C-1 on record. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that from the very purchase, the mobile set in question started giving problems of auto-restart and hanging for which he approached the OP no.2 on 16.06.2016 and OP no.2 issued job sheet but at the time of collecting the mobile set in question from the OP No.2 he deposited the said job sheet with OP No.2. It has been further alleged that when he came to his house the set again started giving same problem but this time the OP No.2 told the complainant that it cannot be repaired as there is manufacturing defect in it.

5.             To prove his version, the complainant has produced on record copy of retail invoice Ex.C-1 and copy of job sheet dated 16/06/2016 Ex.C-2. The complainant has also produced report of an expert namely Kamalpreet Singh Ex.C-3 along with his affidavit Ex.C-4  wherein  he has opined that  after thorough checking and as per his knowledge he found that the mobile set is giving the said problems due to manufacturing defect which are not curable.

6.             Against the version of the complainant, the OPs did not appear and contest the case. Rather the OP no.1 had appeared  and moved an application only to join the proceedings  at the stage  when the case was fixed for arguments. So, in absence of any written version and documentary evidence on behalf of the OPs we find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.  The OPs no.2 and 3 did not appear to contest the case rather they chosen to remain exparte. As such the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record. In case titled as Head, Marketing and Communication, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and others, 2007(1) CPJ 120, Hon'ble Union Territory Consumer Commission Chandigarh has upheld the order passed by the District  Forum with regard to refund of the costs of handset.

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable  to refund an                                                                                                                                                      amount Rs.25000/- which is price amount of the mobile set in dispute  to the complainant subject to return of the defective mobile set in question . We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and  to pay Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses.

8.             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

                October 20, 2016

 

 

 

 (Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                   Member               Member                      President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-