DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 468
Instituted on: 14.09.2017
Decided on: 06.02.2018
Divanshu Goyal son of Sh. Varinder Kumar resident of Nabha Gate, Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF PH-V, Gurugram ( Haryana) through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Gaurav Communication Ist Floor, Inside Gaushala Road, Near Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its Proprietor:
3. S.R. Sales, Opposite Joyti Sarup Gurudwara, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Proprietor.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri Shubham Garg Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY No.1 : Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.2&3 : Exparte
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
ORDER:
Sarita Garg, Member
1. Divanshu Goyal, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased one Samsung Mobile model A-5 2016 E from the OP no.3 for an amount of Rs.19500/- vide invoice no. RT-0105 dated 12.05.2017 and OP no.3 had given warranty of one year. In the month of August 2017, said mobile set started giving problem for which complainant approached OP no.2 who issued job sheet dated 08.08.2017. Thereafter OP no.2 handed over the mobile set but mobile set started giving same problem. On 30.08.2017 mobile set started giving problem of over heat and hanging and OP no.2 issued job sheet dated 30.08.2017 and after 3/4 days returned the set to the complainant but the problem persisted. The complainant requested the OP no.2 to replace the defective set but they did not do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to refund the purchase amount of the said mobile phone i.e. Rs.19500/- 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 no.2 &3 did not appear and as such OPs no.2 and 3 were proceeded exparte.
3. In reply filed by OP No.1, it has been admitted that complainant approached the OP no.2 on 08.08.2017 and submitted his handset with reported problem of ' Screen lock auto open' which is minor problem and OP no.2 rectified the problem and delivered back the handset to the complainant in OK condition. It is denied that on next day the mobile set again given the problem of over heat and hanging and then the complainant again approached the OP no.2 and returned back to the complainant after two days. It is also admitted that on 30.08.2017 the complainant again approached the OP no.2 with problem of over heat and hanging of mobile set and OP no.2 rectified the problem and returned the same in OK condition. It is denied that after 30.08.2017 the complainant ever approached the OP no.2 with any problem in his handset.
4. The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP No.1 has tendered documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the OPs and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion the complaint has following merits.
6. The complainant has purchased Samsung mobile set A-5 2016 E from OP no.3 on 12.05.2017 for Rs.19500/- i.e. clear from Ex.C-5 i.e. invoice. The complainant has stated in his complaint that the mobile set created problem of screen lock auto open in the month of August 2017 and he approached the OP no.2 for removing the defect in the mobile set. The OP no.2 issued the job sheet dated 08.08.2017 i.e. Ex.C-6 for removing the said defect. After that the OP no.2 handed over the mobile phone on same day in OK condition after rectifying the said defects by changing some parts of the mobile set which is clear from Ex.C-7. Then on 30.08.2017 the complainant again approached the OP no.2 by saying that there is problem of over heat and hanging in the said mobile phone. The OP no.2 issued the job sheet i.e. Ex.C-8 on 30.08.2017 and handed over the mobile set after rectifying the problems. But the complainant has alleged that the said problems could not be rectified by the OP no.2 and mobile set continued giving problems. From the perusal of the file we find that after 30.08.2017 the complainant did not approach the OP no.2 for removing the alleged problems.
7. The OP no.1 has admitted in its reply that the handset in question has been alleged to be purchased on 12.05.2017 and till date handset has been submitted with OP no.2 on 8.8.2017, 14.08.2017 and 30.08.2017. It is clear from job sheets Ex.C-6,Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 that mobile set in question is within the warranty period. In support of his case the complainant has also produced on record his affidavit Ex.C-1. The OPs no.2 and 3 did not appear to contest the case of the complainant rather they chose to remain exparte. As such evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted.
8. For the reasons recorded above, we find that mobile set sold by OP no.3 to the complainant developed defects within the warranty period and it was, therefore their duty to remove the same but they failed to remove the defects. According we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to repair the mobile set in question to the satisfaction of the complainant. The OPs are further directed to pay a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/-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 6, 2018
( Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill) Member President
