Haryana

Sonipat

CC/436/2015

Govin S/o Pale Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Bijender Singh

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                  Complaint No.436 of 2015

Instituted on: 30.11.2015                                                      

Date of order:  14.06.2016

 

 

Govind son of Pale Ram, resident of VPO Nangal Kalan, tehsil Rai, distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.        Versus

 

1.Samsung India (Electronics Pvt. Ltd.) 2^nd Flr. Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43, Gold Court road, Gurgaon-122002 through its Director.

2.Shri Ram Sales, Bawa Tarana road, Opp. UCO Bank Ground Floor, near Gandhi Chowk, Sonepat through its Prop.

3.DR Trading Company, 12/578, Upper Ground Floor, Sonepat through its Prop.

4.INS Telecom,  105, 8 Marla, above Punjab National Bank, Sonepat through its  Prop.

                                                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Shri Bijender Singh, Adv. for complainant.

          Respondent no.2 and 3 ex-parte.

          Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, Adv. (Karnal) for

respondents no.1 & 4.

 

Before-  Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

 

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that on 22.12.2014 he has purchased a Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Mobile worth Rs.58900/- from respondent no.2. But within three months, it had started creating problem for the complainant i.e. hanging problem, network problem, touch problem, handfree problem, camera problem etc. The complainant has approached the respondent no.2 for rectification of the faults, but of no use.  Even the complainant has approached the respondent no.4 with the problem of video display blinking alongwith other problems of heating, hanging, proximity sensor not working.  The respondent no.4 has changed the display.  But on 21.10.2015, the complainant has deposited the handset with the respondent no.3 again with the problem of hanging and heating and since then the mobile set is in the possession of the respondent no.3 till date.  The complainant has requested the respondents to replace the mobile phone with new one or to refund the cost of the mobile, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.1 and 4 have appeared and they filed their reply, whereas respondent no.2 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte.

         The respondents no.1 and 4 in their joint written statement have submitted that the complainant has approached the service centre of the company in the month of 5/2015, 9/2015 and 10/2015. Every time the problem was resolved and mobile was returned to the complainant. But thereafter the complainant started demanding that the mobile should be replaced with new one.  There is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set, which make the complainant entitled for its replacement and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and respondents no.1 and 4 at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

4.       In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has purchased the mobile in question from respondent no.2 on 22.12.2014 worth Rs.58900/-.

         The plea of the complainant is that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile and it needs to be replaced with new one.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 4 have submitted that the complainant has approached the service centre of the company in the month of 5/2015, 9/2015 and 10/2015. Every time the problem was resolved and mobile was returned to the complainant. But thereafter the complainant started demanding that the mobile should be replaced with new one.  There is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set, which make the complainant entitled for its replacement.

         The complainant has purchased the mobile set on 22.12.2014 and he has filed the present complaint before this Forum on 30.11.2015, when one year of warranty period was likely to be expired.  The complainant has used the mobile set for about one year. The perusal of the legal notice shows that first complaint was made to the respondent no.3 on 5.5.2015, thereafter on 11.5.2015, and thereafter the complainant approached the respondent no.4 on 3.9.2015, 5.10.2015 and 21.10.2015 and has apprised the respondents with the defects i.e. display blink, heating, hanging issue, proximity sensor not work properly. Thus, it is proved that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile. However, in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondents no.1 and 4. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents no.1 and 4 to refund 60% amount of Rs.58900/- to the complainant.  The respondents no.1 and 4 are also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousand) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The respondent no.1 and 4 are hereby directed to make the compliance of this order within 60 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise, the 60% amount (excluding the amount of compensation) shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its actual realization.

         The complainant in his complaint has mentioned that he has deposited the mobile set with the respondent no.3 on 21.10.2015 and since then the mobile set is in the possession of the respondent no.3.  Thus, the respondents are directed not to claim the mobile set from the complainant. However, the complainant is directed to return the accessories of the mobile set to the respondents.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly qua respondents no.1 and 4.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                         (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF,                        President, DCDRF

Sonepat.                              Sonepat.

 

Announced 14.06.2016