BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.398 of 2015
Date of Instt. 09.09.2015
Date of Decision :01.06.2016
V.K.Singla son of Lakha Ram R/o 12, Surya Vihar, Near DAV College, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd., 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon Sector-43, Gurgaon-122002 through its Managing Director.
2. Shabd Enterprises, Pam Rose World Trade Centre, Opp.Hotel International, Near Bus Stand, Jalandhar through its Prop./Manager/ Partner.
3. Jimmy Mobile House, Shop No.7, Old Sabzi Mandi Market, Opp.Hotel Dolphin, Jalandhar through its Prop./Manager/Partner.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Sarabjit Kaur Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
Opposite party No.3 exparte.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy mobile phone from OP No.3 vide invoice dated 31.12.2013 for Rs.15,500/- which was supplied to the complainant by OP No.2. Complainant submitted that after few days touch system of the said phone started giving problem and the complainant approached OP No.2 and OP No.2 replaced the touch screen with new one vide job sheet dated 3.6.2014. The complainant submitted that even after that the said mobile phone was used for few days and then same problem started. The complainant again approached the service centre OP No.2 on 2.8.2014. Again the OP replaced the touch screen vide job sheet dated 2.8.2014 but even thereafter the said mobile phone hardly worked for few days and again gave the same problem. Complainant submitted that the every time important data of the complainant was lost in that process of changing touch screen. The complainant also suffered various problems due to malfunctioning of the mobile set in question. The complainant again approached OP No.2 vide job sheet dated 10.12.2014. The OP was ready to refund the amount of the mobile set. The complainant requested the OP No.2 to transfer and save data of the complainant in the said phone to the memory card or some other way as the data was very important but the OP refused to do so. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund the cost of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.15,500/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that the complainant badly mishandled the mobile set in question. As a result of which, touch penal of the handset was damaged. The complainant approached the OP No.2 on 3.6.2014 and 2.8.2014 and on both times as a good will gesture, the OP replaced the touch penal of the handset of the complainant despite the fact that it was damaged due to mishandling of the mobile phone by the user. Both times after replacing the touch penal of the mobile set, the set was delivered to the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant approached OP No.2 in December 2014 and insisted to replace the handset or refund the price. OP No.2 as a good will gesture forwarded the request of the complainant to OP No.1 for replacement or refund of price of the handset. Accordingly, OP No.1 accepted the request and refund the purchase price of the handset by way of cheque in favour of the complainant. The complainant was called upon to return the accessories of the handset alongwith box of the handset and to collect the cheque but the complainant did not collect the cheque from the OP nor submitted the accessories and box of the handset and filed the present complaint. OPs No.1 & 2 denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP No.3 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.
4. In support of his complaint, attorney holder of complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A and evidence of the OPs No.1 & 2 was closed by order.
6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy mobile phone from OP No.3 vide invoice dated 31.12.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.15,500/- which was supplied to the complainant by OP No.2. Complainant submitted that after a few days touch system of the said phone starting giving problem and the complainant approached the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 replaced the touch screen with new one vide job sheet dated 3.6.2014. The complainant submitted that even after that the said mobile phone was used for few days and the same problem started. The complainant again approached the service centre OP No.2 on 2.8.2014. Again the OP replaced the touch screen vide job sheet dated 2.8.2014 Ex.C5 but even thereafter the said mobile phone hardly worked for few days and again gave the same problem. Complainant submitted that the every time very important data of the complainant was lost in that process of changing touch screen. The complainant also suffered various problems due to malfunctioning of the mobile set in question. The complainant again approached OP No.2 vide job sheet dated 10.12.2014 Ex.C4. Ops No.1 & 2 are ready to refund the amount of the mobile set. The complainant requested OP No.2 to transfer and save data of the complainant in the said phone to the memory card or some other way as the data was very important but the OP refused to do so. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of the OPs No.1 & 2 is that the complainant badly mishandled the mobile set in question. As a result of which, touch penal of the handset was damaged. The complainant approached the OP No.2 on 3.6.2014 and 2.8.2014 and on both times as a good will gesture, the OP No.2 replaced the touch penal of the handset of the complainant despite the fact that it was damaged due to mishandling of the mobile phone by the user. Both times after replacing the touch penal of the mobile set, the set was delivered to the complainant in OK condition to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant approached OP No.2 in December 2014 and insisted to replace the handset or refund the price. The OP No.2 as a good will gesture forwarded the request of the complainant to OP No.1 for replacement or refund of price of the handset. Accordingly, OP No.1 accepted the request and refund the purchase price of the handset by way of cheque in favour of the complainant. The complainant was called upon to return all the accessories of the handset alongwith box of the handset and to collect the cheque but the complainant did not collect the cheque from the OP No.2 nor submitted the accessories and box of the handset and filed the present complaint. Learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 submitted that under these circumstances, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased the mobile set in question manufactured by OP No.1 through OP No.3 on 31.12.2013 vide invoice Ex.C1. The touch screen of the mobile set became defective and the complainant approached the OP on 3.6.2014. The OP found that the touch screen of the mobile set was damaged due to mishandling of the mobile set by the user. However, the OP replaced the touch penal of the handset free of cost and returned the mobile set to the complainant in OK condition to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, again the touch penal of the mobile set of the complainant did not work properly and the complainant approached OP No.2 on 2.8.2014. Again the OP changed the touch penal of the handset and made if fully functional and returned the same to the complainant in OK condition to the satisfaction of the complainant vide job sheet Ex.C5. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP No.2 on 10.12.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C4 with the same complaint of problem of touch screen and requested the OP for replacement of the mobile set or refund of the price of the mobile set. Resultantly, OP No.2 recommended the case of the complainant to OP No.1 and OP No.1 accepted the request and sent the cheque to refund full price of the mobile set to the complainant, subject to return of the accessories of the mobile set alongwith box of the handset and the complainant was requested by OP NO.2 to collect cheque and hand over the accessories and the box of the handset to OP NO.2 but complainant did not collect the cheque. Rather complainant told the OP No.2 to transfer and save data of the complainant of said phone to the memory card or some other way as data was very important. Counsel for the OP also stated at bar that OP No.2 will also transfer and save the data of the said phone. So under these circumstances, when the OP has already replaced twice the touch penal of the mobile set of the complainant and now the OP is ready to refund the entire amount i.e. total price of the mobile set of the complainant and also agree to save the data of the complainant in the said mobile phone, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant. Resultantly, the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to OPs No.1 & 2 to pay the price of the mobile set of the complainant i.e. Rs.15,500/- on receipt of accessories alongwith box of the mobile set from the complainant and also to save data of the mobile set of the complainant. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
01.06.2016 Member President
