DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                   Consumer Complaint No.534 of 2016

                                         Date of institution:  01.09.2016                                                Date of decision   :  25.09.2017

Pinki alias Anuradha wife of Ashwani Kumar resident of House No.3726, Ward No.8, Mohalla Dhobbian Wala, Kharar, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar.

 ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Booth No.1, Sector 81, Phase II, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP through its Managing Director.

2.     Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Mobile Solutions, SCO No.48, Phase-V, SAS Nagar/Mohali through its Manager.

                                                   ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:    Complainant in person.

Ms. Neeru Sharma, counsel for the OPs.

ORDER

By Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

                Complainant Pinki alias Anuradha has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant purchased one mobile phone Make Samsung G360H Core Prime 359451064886049 from Mobile Café, Sector 20-B, Mandi Gobindgarh by paying cash payment of  Rs.7600/- vide bill dated 28.08.2015.  The  mobile went out of order on 02.08.2016 and the complainant went to OP No.2 for repair but the officials of the OP No.2 told the complainant that the mobile is OK. The complainant again faced the problem on 06.08.2016 and complained to OP No.2 about the defect and then the mobile was kept by OP No.2  and returned the same to the complainant on 16.08.2016.  The complainant faced the similar problem on 26.08.2016 and when she made the complaint to OP No.2,  OP No.2 kept the mobile and returned it to the complainant on 27.08.2016. The complainant requested OP No.2 to replace the mobile because it was within guarantee but OP No.2 flatly refused to same.  The complainant is being harassed without any fault on her part. The complainant is doing tailoring work and due to defective phone she has suffered mentally, physically as well as financially.   Hence the complainant has sought direction to the OPs to replace the defective mobile phone; to pay her compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental, physical and financial loss.

3.             The OPs in their joint written statement have pleaded in the preliminary objections that the mobile handset was purchased by the complainant on 22.08.2015 (wrongly mentioned as 22.08.2050 in the written statement) and the present complaint is being filed immediately on expiry of warranty period on 30.08.2016. There has been no defect in the mobile for a period of more than 11 months and six days of its purchase which shows that there was no defect in the mobile set even as per case of the complainant.  When the mobile set was brought on 02.08.2016 problem of auto off was mentioned which was checked and no fault was found in the mobile. On 26.08.2016 complaint of network and auto restart was made. The network problem is not attributable to the mobile set as it is a common knowledge that it is on account of lack of towers and signal of the service provider. The mobile handset was extensively checked and no fault was found and it was handed over to the complainant who received the same to the satisfaction. There is no defect in the mobile handset and thus there is no question of replacement.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; warranty card Ex.C-1; bill Ex.C-2 and acknowledgment Ex.C-3. In rebuttal counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Amit Rana, their Manager as Ex.OP-1/1.

5.             We have heard the complainant and counsel for the OPs and have gone through the contents of the file.

6.             The complainant after some months of purchase of her phone faced problem in the mobile phone. Then, the complainant has given her phone to OP No.2 for repairs as per Ex.C-3 which shows the phone was under warranty. Therefore, the plea of the Ops that the phone was out of warranty is not sustainable. The complainant has visited the service centre/OP No.2 whenever there was any problem in the handset but the problem was not sorted out. The OPs have failed to prove that they have repaired the phone of the complainant as per the problems faced by her in the handset.  Hence, we are of the opinion that the OPs are deficient in service by not repairing the handset of the complainant.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, the OPs are directed to replace the defective mobile of the complainant having same price at which the mobile handset was purchased by the complainant. The OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.8,000/- (Rs. Eight Thousand only) on account of mental agony and financial loss.  The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.            

                The OP is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual realisation.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 25.09.2017

                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)           

President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member